^0SX  OF  PRINCO^s 


A 


•BI2.8 


THE  MODERN  COMMENTARY 

THE    BEGINNINGS    OF 
GOSPEL    STORY 

A    HISTORICO-CRITICAL    INQUIRY    INTO    THE    SOURCES    AND 

STRUCTURE  OF  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK, 

WITH    EXPOSITORY    NOTES    UPON 

THE  TEXT,  FOR  ENGLISH 

READERS 


fI!*%n 


By 
BENJAMIN  WISNER  BACON,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Buckingham  Professor  of  New  Testament  Criticism 
and  Exegesis  in  Yale  University 


NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 

YALE      UNIVERSITY     PRESS 

LONDON     TORONTO,    AND   MELBOURNE 

HENRY  FROWDE 
1909 


Copyright,  1909 

by 

BENJAMIN  WISNER  BACON 

Entered  at  Stationers'  Hall,  London 

The  Text  of  the  Revised  Version  is  used  by  permission  of  the  Universities  of 
Oxford  and  Cambridge 


Printed  in  the  United  States 


TO  MY  COLLEAGUES 

OP 

YALE  DIVINITY  SCHOOL 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Preface vii 

Introduction. 

1.  Logical  Analysis  of  the  Gospel xi 

2.  Relation  of  Mark  to  Evangelic  Tradition xvii 

3.  Mark  and  the  Petrine  Narrative xix 

4.  Relation  to  the  Teaching  Source xx 

5.  The  Anti-Judaistic  Point  of  View  of  R xxii 

6.  R's  Attitude  toward  the  Apostolic  Authorities xxiv 

7.  The  Paulinism  of  Mark xxvii 

8.  The  Earliest  Form  of  Evangelic  Tradition  at  Rome xxviii 

9.  Date  of  Composition  of  Mark xxxi 

10.  Historical  Value  of  the  Contents xxxiii 

11.  Miracles  and  Exorcism  in  Mark  vs.  Paul  and  Q xxxv 

12.  The  Sociological  Environment  in  Mark  vs.  Luke xxxvi 

13.  Mark  and  Luke  vs.  Q  on  Jesus  as  Apocalyptic  Son  of 

Man xxxviii 

14.  The  Resultant  Story  of  Jesus xxxviii 


PART  I.     THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY 

Division  I:     Mk.  1:  1—3:  6. 

Structure 3 

Subdivision  a.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 6 

Text  and  Exposition 8 

Subdivision  b.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 14 

Text  and  Exposition 16 

Subdivision  c.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 22 

Text  and  Exposition 25 

Division  II:     Mk.  3:  7—6:  13. 

Structure 34 

Subdivision  a.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 38 

Text  and  Exposition 40 

Subdivision  6.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 45 

Text  and  Exposition 47 

Subdivision  c.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 53 

Text  and  Exposition 56 

v 


vi  CONTENTS 

Division  III:     Mk.  6: 14—8:  26.  Page 

Structure 67 

Subdivision  a.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 70 

Text  and  Exposition 73 

Subdivision  b.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 76 

Text  and  Exposition 81 

Subdivision  c.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 92 

Text  and  Exposition 94 


PART  II.    THE  JUD^EAN  MINISTRY 

Introduction 103 

Division  IV:    Mk.  8:  27—10:  52. 

Structure 112 

Subdivision  a.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 114 

Text  and  Exposition 117 

Subdivision  b.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 130 

Text  and  Exposition 133 

Subdivision  c.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 144 

Text  and  Exposition 147 

Division  V:    Cc.  11—13. 

Structure 152 

Subdivision  a.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 153 

Text  and  Exposition 158 

Subdivision  b.     Paraphrase  and  Criticism 167 

Text  and  Exposition 170 

Subdivision  c.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 178 

Text  and  Exposition 182 

Division  VI:    Cc.  14—16. 

Structure 190 

Subdivision  a.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 192 

Text  and  Exposition 199 

Subdivision  6.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 215 

Text  and  Exposition 218 

Subdivision  c.    Paraphrase  and  Criticism 225 

Text  and  Exposition 228 


PREFACE 

No  man  can  pretend  to  have  seriously  examined  the 
historical  basis  of  the  Christian  faith  who  has  not  to  some 
extent  applied  the  ordinary  processes  of  historical  criticism 
to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  the  earliest  extant  embodiment  of 
the  evangelic  story.  The  present  volume  is  offered  as  an 
example  and  aid  to  serious  and  impartial  but  non-technical 
investigation  in  this  field. 

The  form  adopted  combines  critical  analysis  of  the  sub- 
stance with  exegesis  in  detail.  It  is  chosen  for  the  purpose 
of  exhibiting  the  results  of  the  higher  criticism. 

The  recent  general  acknowledgment  that  in  Mark  we  have 
the  oldest  canonical  Gospel,  an  embodiment  of  the  accepted 
outline  of  Jesus'  career,  already  stereotyped  when  "Matthew" 
and  "Luke"  were  written,  has  brought  forth  a  succession 
of  splendid  contributions  to  the  purely  exegetical  interpreta- 
tion of  this  Gospel.  To  say  nothing  of  the  great  German 
authorities,  our  own  Gould  and  Swete  have  added  greatly 
to  the  resources  of  philological  exposition,  and  Menzies  has 
given  new  light  from  the  historical  side.  But  that  which 
the  intelligent  layman  most  requires  has  not  been  placed 
within  his  reach.  The  richest  fruits  of  modern  biblical 
study  have  come  from  the  field  of  the  higher  criticism. 
Documentary  analysis  of  the  sources  has  been  eagerly  pur- 
sued by  authorities  such  as  Wernle,  Schmiedel,  Weiss, 
Wellhausen,  Harnack,  Loisy,  Sir  John  Hawkins,  Burton, 
and  Burkitt.  The  recent  lives  of  Christ  by  Nath.  Schmidt, 
O.  Holtzmann,  Bousset,  and  the  preliminary  studies  by 
Sanday,  have  shown  that  the  real  interest  of  our  time  lies 
no  longer  in  the  exact  apprehension  of  the  sense  the  writer 
of  70-90  a.d.  may  have  given  to  the  evangelic  tradition. 
We  no  longer  attempt  to  say,  Thus  the  sacred  writer  con- 
ceived the  event  to  have  been,  therefore  thus  it  was ;  for  we 
have  four  sacred  historians,  no  two  of  whom  conceive  the 
event  in  just  the  same  way.  The  point  of  real  interest  for 
our  time  is  at  least  a  generation  earlier.  What  was  the 
event  which  gave  rise  to  the  story?  Through  what  phases 
has  the  tradition  passed  to  acquire  its  canonical  forms? 
Such  have  been  the  burning  questions  of  modern  scholars 
in  respect  to  the  historic  origins  of  the  Christian  faith,  and 


PREFACE 


the  intelligent  layman  is  entitled  to  expect  that  he  shall 
not  be  put  off  with  mere  exegesis.  He  will  not  be  satisfied 
to  be  told,  Such,  and  such,  is  the  sacred  writer's  meaning. 
He  demands  an  opinion  on  the  question,  Was  it  so,  or 
was  it  not  so?  What  was  the  common  starting-point  from 
which  the  varying  forms  of  the  tradition  diverge? 

It  has  been  the  endeavor  of  the  present  commentary  to 
give  an  answer  to  such  questions  with  absolute  frankness, 
without  mental  reservation,  in  terms  intelligible  even  to 
the  student  unfamiliar  with  Greek  and  ignorant  of  the 
course  of  technical  discussion,  leaving  it  to  the  reader  him- 
self to  decide  whether  the  discussion  of  such  questions  is 
serviceable  to  religious  faith. 

To  meet  the  requirements  just  stated  two  things  were 
necessary:  1.  The  adoption  of  a  form  permitting  the 
introduction  of  historico-critical  discussions  into  the  heart 
of  the  commentary  itself.  2.  The  rigid  exclusion  of  the 
mechanism  of  processes  and  technicalities  in  favor  of 
plainly  stated  results. 

That  which  is  designed  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
historical  and  literary  criticism  is  compacted  in  the  ordinary- 
commentary  into  a  single  comprehensive  Introduction, 
wherein  the  endeavor  is  commonly  made  to  treat  in  one 
mass  all  the  phenomena  of  the  book  which  have  a  bearing 
on  its  date  and  authorship,  the  derivation,  character,  and 
intended  application  of  its  contents,  and  the  history  of  its 
transmission.  For  persons  whose  training  and  familiarity 
with  the  text  do  not  enable  them  to  carry  in  mental 
vision  the  entire  contents  of  the  Gospel,  such  an  Introduction 
is  too  cumbrous.  At  best  the  critical  discussion  is  sepa- 
rated by  whole  chapters  from  that  portion  of  the  text  with 
which  it  is  concerned.  The  present  subdivision  of  the  text 
into  its  logical  parts,  accompanied  by  paraphrases  and  by 
general  historico-critical  comments  on  the  contents  of  the 
particular  section,  is  designed  to  make  it  more  practicable 
for  the  lay  reader  to  acquaint  himself  with  the  real  questions 
of  literary  and  historical  criticism. 

The  rule,  "results,  not  processes,"  is  imposed  by  the 
demand  of  the  reading  public.  In  technical  journals 
such  as  The  American  Journal  of  Theology,  the  Journal  of 
Biblical  Literature,  the  Harvard  Theological  Review,  and  the 
Zeitschrift  fur  neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft  will  be  found 
articles  presenting  in  greater  technical  detail  the  author's 
reasons  for  many  conclusions  here  advanced  for  acceptance 
or  rejection  on  their  prima  facie  merits.     Let  the  state- 


PREFACE 


ments  stand  here  with  all  their  seeming  lack  of  support, 
so  long  as  the  general  presentation  receives  sober  and 
impartial  consideration.  The  processes  of  historical  and 
documentary  criticism  are  not  novel  and  untried.  They 
have  abundantly  justified  themselves  in  the  field  of  Old 
Testament  narrative,  and  will  surely  do  so  in  that  of 
the  Gospels.  Still  a  word  is  demanded  in  respect  to  the 
distinctive  feature  of  the  method  here  applied,  which  may 
be  designated  the  method  of  "pragmatic  values." 

The  key  to  all  genuinely  scientific  appreciation  of  biblical 
narrative,  whether  in  Old  Testament  or  New,  is  the  recogni- 
tion of  motive.  The  motive  of  the  biblical  writers  in  re- 
porting the  tradition  current  around  them  is  never  strictly 
historical,  but  always  etiological,  and  frequently  apolo- 
getic. In  other  words,  their  report  is  not  framed  to  satisfy 
the  curiosity  of  the  critical  historian,  but,  as  they  frankly 
acknowledge,  to  confirm  the  faith  of  believers  "in  the 
things  wherein  they  have  been  instructed,"  to  convince  the 
unconverted,  or  to  refute  the  unbeliever.  The  evangelic 
tradition  consists  of  so  and  so  many  anecdotes,  told  and 
retold  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  or  defending  beliefs  and 
practices  of  the  contemporary  Church. 

It  follows  that  a  judgment  of  the  modifications  which 
the  tradition,  or  any  part  of  it,  may  have  undergone,  to 
have  any  value,  must  take  account  of  the  actual  conditions, 
the  environment,  under  which  the  tradition  developed  to 
its  present  form.  Herein  lies  the  occasion  for  applying  to 
the  criticism  of  the  Gospels  the  same  principle  which  the 
great  Graf-Kuenen  school  applied  to  the  historical  tradition 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  anonymous,  undated  narrative 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  historical  books  must  be  judged, 
said  they,  in  the  light  of  conditions  as  they  are  reflected 
for  a  given  age  in  the  dated  and  known  writings  of  Amos, 
Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  the  later  prophets. 

By  far  the  oldest  documents  of  the  New  Testament  are 
the  great  Epistles  of  Paul.  We  know  their  author.  Their 
authenticity  is  practically  undisputed.  They  afford  us  a 
cross-section  of  Christian  belief,  institutions,  and  practices 
in  the  Greek-speaking  churches  a  full  score  of  years  before 
our  earliest  Gospel  was  written.  And  the  photographic 
view  thus  given  is  all  the  more  trustworthy  because  entirely 
unconscious. 

It  belongs  therefore  to  the  essence  of  the  method  of  prag- 
matic values,  to  seize  first  of  all  upon  the  motive  of  narra- 
tion—usually transparent  enough  when  the  conditions  of 


PREFACE 


the  churches  are  considered,  as  they  may  be  known  through 
their  epistolary  literature.  When  once  the  great  lesson  of 
our  experience  in  Old  Testament  literature  is  learned,  that 
the  narratives  we  are  dealing  with  are  primarily  (Etiological, 
we  hold  in  our  hands  the  chief  key  to  the  development  of 
evangelic  tradition,  the  beliefs,  institutions,  and  practices 
of  the  apostolic  churches  and  their  method  of  defense 
against  opponents  and  traducers. 

As  respects  comparison  of  manuscripts,  or  of  the  Gospels 
among  themselves,  or  of  duplicate  narratives  within  the 
limits  of  the  same  Gospel,  it  is  needless  to  offer  further 
explanation.  For  a  general  presentation  of  the  present 
state  of  Synoptic  criticism  the  reader  is  referred  to  the 
article  entitled  "A  Turning  Point  in  Synoptic  Criticism" 
in  the  Harvard  Theological  Review,  I.  1  (January  1908). 
A  few  variant  readings  and  renderings  have  been  added  to 
those  placed  in  the  margin  by  the  Revisers  of  1881  and 
placed  beneath  the  text.  Such  as  had  no  bearing  on  the 
meaning,  nor  the  history  of  transmission,  were  not  included. 

New  Haven,  May,  1908.  Benj.  W.  Bacon. 


Postscript. — It  had  been  my  intention  to  say  nothing 
whatever  on  the  proportion  of  strictly  original  contributions 
in  the  present  volume  to  such  as  had  already  been  advanced 
by  other  critics.  The  scholar  will  know  what  has  been 
said  before;  the  general  reader  will  not  care.  I  am  now 
impelled  to  attach  a  word  in  departure  from  this  rule  be- 
cause of  the  extraordinary  degree  of  coincidence  in  results 
independently  attained  by  me  with  those  of  Loisy  in  his  re- 
cent Evangiles  Synoptiques,  1908,  especially  the  chapter  of 
his  Introduction  entitled  "Le  Second  fivangile." 

With  the  apologists  of  tradition  a  favorite  argument  is, 
No  two  critics  are  of  one  mind  in  their  analysis.  Loisy's 
admirable  criticism  of  Mark  came  into  my  hands  for  the 
first  time  after  the  last  sentence  of  the  present  work  had 
been  written.  For  the  sake  of  the  value  which  seems  to 
me  to  attach  to  such  remarkable  coincidence  I  have  re- 
frained from  any  alteration  whatever,  even  where  his  work 
has  suggested  improvement,  as,  e.g.,  in  the  suggestion  of 
the  influence  of  Amos  2: 16  on  the  preservation  (not  origina- 
tion) of  the  trait  Mk.  14:  51,  52.  Vivant  et  qui  ante  nos 
nostra  jam  dixerunt.  B.  W.  B, 


INTRODUCTION 

1.  Logical  Analysis  of  the  Gospel 

An  indispensable  condition  to  the  proper  understanding 
and  valuation  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  a  comprehensive 
and  proportioned  survey  of  its  contents.  Ultimately  we 
may  hope  to  carry  our  analysis  further,  discriminating 
material  which  came  to  the  evangelist  out  of  oral  and  written 
tradition  from  the  editorial  supplements  by  which  he  has 
fitted  it  to  his  own  special  adaptations. 

No  historical  source  of  any  period  resting  upon  ulterior  re- 
ports, least  of  all  narratives  so  persistently  reiterated  for 
apologetic  or  catechetic  purposes  as  the  biblical,  can  be  re- 
garded as  understood,  until  every  effort  has  been  made  to 
carry  through  this  discrimination.  In  the  case  of  the  four 
Gospels  both  elements,  the  traditional  and  the  editorial,  suf- 
fer in  value  for  lack  of  it;  for  the  two  belong  to  periods  at 
least  40  years  apart,  and  each  demands  interpretation  in  the 
light  of  its  own  historical  environment.  Still  our  first  re- 
quirement is  to  understand  the  writing  in  its  latest  form,  as 
he  whom  we  designate  the  Redactor  (R),  that  is  the  ultimate 
employer  of  the  material,  means  it  to  be  taken.  Therefore 
we  shall  avoid  beginning  with  another  rehearsal  of  legend- 
ary anecdotes  about  John  Mark,  which  are  merely  suppositi- 
tious traits  in  the  life  story  of  the  man  traditionally  reported 
to  have  been  the  writer  of  this  Gospel.  On  the  contrary  we 
shall  endeavor  first  of  all  to  draw  from  the  phenomena  of 
its  structure  a  logical  tabulation  of  its  contents,  aiming  to 
exhibit  the  controlling  purpose  and  point  of  view  of  the  com- 
piler, R,  as  the  structure  itself  reveals  them. 

Even  a  superficial  glance  will  show  that  the  narrative 
falls  into  two  parts  of  nearly  equal  extent.  Part  First 
relates  The  Galilean  Ministry,  including  1 :  1 — 8:26.  Part 
Second  relates  The  Judaean  Ministry,  including  in  8:27 — 
16:  8  the  account  of  Jesus'  journey  to  Jerusalem,  with  his 
passion  and  resurrection. 

Each  part  has  also  three  main  Divisions,  whose  limits 
as  a  rule  are  so  clearly  defined  by  the  subject  matter  that 
all  interpreters  are  in  substantial  agreement  as  to  their 
extent.  The  structure  of  the  Gospel  can  therefore  be  tabu- 
lated as  follows; 

xi 


INTRODUCTION 


PART  I.    THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY 

DIVISION    L    BEGINNING  OF    JESUS*    MINISTRY, 
1:1—3:6. 

Title  of  the  Book,  1 :  1 

Prologue.     Jesus  Baptized,  Called,  and  Tested,  1 :  2- J  3. 

(1)  The  Preaching  of  John,  vers.  2-8. 

(2)  Jesus'  Vocation  and  Anointing  with  the  Spirit, 
vers.  9-11. 

(3)  The  Temptation,  vers.  12,  13. 

Subdivision  a.  Jesus  comes  to  Capernaum  and  begins  the 
"Work  of  Preaching  and  Healing,  1: 14-45. 

(1)    General  Preliminary  Statement, vers.  14, 15. 

(2)  Jesus  summons  the  four  fishers  to  fish  for  men, 
vers.  16-20. 

(3)  Preaching  and  Exorcism  in  the  Synagogue   at 
Capernaum,  vers.  21-28. 

(4)  Healing  in  Simon's  house,  vers.  29-31. 

(5)  Importunities  for  Healing,  vers.  32-34. 

(6)  Withdrawal  from  Capernaum,  vers.  35-39. 

(7)    Episode  of  the  Leper,  vers.  40-45. 

Subdivision  b.     The  Growth  of  Opposition,  2:  1 — 3:6. 

(1)  Return  to  Capernaum.     Jesus  antagonizes   the 
Scribes  by  Forgiving  Sin,  2:  1-12. 

(2)  He  associates  with  Publicans  and  Sinners,  vers. 
13-17. 

(3)  He  absolves  his  Disciples  from  the  Fasts,  vers. 
18-22. 

(4)  He  defends  their  Disregard  of  the  Sabbath,  vers. 
23-28. 

(5)  He  challenges  the  Pharisees  by  Healing  on  the 
Sabbath.     They  plot  against  his  life,  3:  1-6. 


DIVISION  II.    MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE,  3: 7-6: 13. 
Subdivision  a.     Setting  apart  the  Twelve,  3:  7-35. 

(1)    General  Preliminary  Survey,  vers.  7-12. 

(2)  Choosing  of  the  Twelve,  vers.  13-19a. 

(3)  Jesus'  Kindred  Intervene,  vers.  196-21. 

(4)   Episode  of  the  Blasphemy  of  the  Scribes, 
vers.  22-30. 
(5)   Jesus  Turns  from  Mother  and  Brethren  to  his 
Spiritual  Kin,  vers.  31-35. 


INTRODUCTION 


Subdivision  b.  Delivering  the  Mystery  of  the  Kingdom, 
4: 1-34. 

(1)    Jesus  begins  to  teach  in  Parables.      The  Sower, 
vers.  1-9. 

(2)  Explanation  why,   and  of  the   meaning, 
vers.  10-20. 

(3)  Exhortations   to  receptive  Hearers,  vers. 
21-25. 

(4)  Second  Parable  of  the  Kingdom.      The  Patient 
Husbandman,  vers.  26-29. 

(5)  Third  Parable.     The  Mustard  Seed,  vers.  30-32. 

(6)    Editorial  Colophon,  vers.  33,  34. 

Subdivision   c.     Manifestation  in  Mighty  Works,  4:  35 — 
6:6a. 

(1)  Quelling  the  Storm,  4:  35-41. 

(2)  Exorcism  of  a  Legion  of  Devils,  5:  1-20. 

(3)  The  Coming  of  Jesus.     A  Woman  Healed  by 
the  Touch  of  Jesus'  Garment,  vers.  21-34. 

(4)  He  raises  Jairus'  Daughter  from  the  Dead,  vers. 
25-43. 

(5)  Mighty  Works  of  no  Avail  against  Jewish  Un- 
belief, 6:  l-6a. 

Epilogue.     Mission  of  the  Twelve,  6:  66-13. 


DIVISION  III.    THE  BREAKING  OF   THE  BREAD, 
6: 14—8: 26. 

Subdivision  a.     The  Fate  of  the  Forerunner,  6?  14-29. 

(1)  Herod's  Comment,  6:  14-16. 

(2)  Episode  of  the  Martyrdom  of  John,  6:  17-29. 

Subdivision  b.     Sign  of  the  Loaves  in  Galilee ,  6:  30 — 7: 30. 

(1)  Miracle  of  the  Five  Loaves  among  Five  Thou- 
sand, 6:  30-44. 

(2)  Jesus  walks  on  the  Sea,  vers.  45-52. 

(3)    Gennesaret.    General  Description  of  Heal- 
ings, vers.  53-56. 

(4)  Intervention  of  Scribes  from  Jerusalem.  Jesus 
renounces  Mosaic  Distinctions  of  Meats,  7:  1-23. 

(5)  He  withdraws  from  Galilee.  Healing  of  the 
Syro-Phoenician  and  Promise  of  the  Children's 
Bread  to  Gentiles,  7:  24-30. 


INTRODUCTION 


Subdivision  c.     Sign  of  the  Loaves  in  Decapolis,  7:31 — 
8:26. 

(1)  Through  Phoenicia  and  Decapolis.     The  Ears  of 
the  Deaf  Unstopped,  7:  31-37. 

(2)  Miracle  of  the  Seven  Loaves  among  Four  Thou- 
sand, vers.  1-9. 

(3)  To  Dalmanutha.     The  Pharisees  demand  a  Sign, 
vers.  10-13. 

(4)  Warning  against  the  Leaven  of  the  Pharisees, 
vers.  14-21. 

(5)  To  Bethsaida.     The  Eyes  of  the  Blind  Opened, 
vers.  22-26. 


PART  IL    THE  JUD^AN  MINISTRY 

DIVISION  IV.    THE   WAY  OF  THE   CROSS,  8:  27— 
10:52. 

Subdivision  a.     Revelation  of  the  Mystery  of  the  Cross, 
8: 27—9: 29. 

(1)  Through  the  Kingdom  of  Philip.  Jesus  Reveals 
his  Call  to  Martyrdom  and  Resurrection.  Peter 
Rebuked,  8:26—9:  1. 

(2)  Jesus  Transfigured  with  Moses  and  Elias,  9:  2-10. 

(3)  Jesus'  Coming  and  Martyrdom,  and  that  of 
Elias,  vers.  11-13. 

Epilogue.    Exorcism  of  a  Dumb  Devil,  9: 14-29. 

Subdivision  b.     The    Exodus    from    Galilee.     Forsaking 
All,  9:  30—10:  3J. 

i.     Through  Galilee.    Jesus    teaches    the    right   spirit    of 
Rulership  in  the  Church,  9:  30-50. 

(1)  Preliminary  Survey.  Reiteration  of  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Cross,  9:  30-32. 

(2)  First  Quarrel  for  Precedence,  and  Lesson  from 
the  Child,  vers.  33-37. 

(3)  Receiving  vs.  Stumbling,  vers.  38-42. 

(4)  Cut  off  the  Offending  Member,  vers.  43-48. 
(51   Concerning  Salt,  vers.  49,  50. 


INTRODUCTION  xv 


ii.     Through  Percea.     Jesus  teaches  the  Spirit  of  Renun- 
ciation, 10: 1-31. 

(1)  The  Question  of  Divorce.    Moses  and  the  Higher 
Law,  10:  1-12. 

(2)  Jesus    commands    that    Children    be    received, 
vers.  13-16. 

(3)  The  Inquirer  for  the  Conditions  of  Eternal  Life, 
vers.  17-22. 

(4)  The  Stumbling-block  of  Riches,  vers.  23-27. 

(5)  Peter's  Claim  to  Reward  rebuked,  vers.  28-31. 

Subdivision    c.     Rank    and    Reward    in    the    Kingdom, 
10:32-45. 

(1)  Reiteration  of  the  Prediction  of  the  Cross,  vers. 
32-34. 

(2)  Ambitious   Request  of  James   and   John.     The 
Reward  of  Martyrdom,  vers.  35-40. 

(3)  Quarrel  for  Place.     The  Principle  of  Greatness 
in  Christ's  Kingdom,  vers.  41-45. 

Epilogue.    Opening  of  Blind  Eyes,  vers.  46-52. 


DIVISION  V.  THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM,  cc.  11-13. 

Subdivision  a.     Zion's  King  Comes  to  Her,  11:  1 — 12:  12. 

(1)    Triumphal  Entry  into  Jerusalem,  11:  1-11. 

(2)  Episode  of  the  Fig  Tree  Cursed,  vers.  12-14. 
(3)    Purging  of  the  Temple,  vers.  15-18. 

(4)  Sequel  to  the  Cursing  of  the  Fig  Tree,  vers. 
19-25. 

(5)  Jesus  Challenged  for  his  Authority,  vers.  27-33. 

(6)  Parable  of  the  Usurpers  in  the  Vineyard,  12:  1-12. 

Subdivision  b.     Teaching  in  the  Temple,  12:  13-44. 

(1)  The  Question  of  the  Pharisees,  vers.  13-17. 

(2)  The  Question  of  the  Sadducees,  vers.  18-27. 

(3)  The  Question  of  the  Scribe,  vers.  28-34. 

(4)  Christ's  Question,  vers.  35-37. 

(5)  Denunciation  of  the  Scribes,  vers.  38-40. 

(6)  The  Widow's  Mites,  vers.  41-44. 


INTRODUCTION 


Subdivision  c.     Warning  of  Impending  Judgment,  c.  13. 

(1)   Preliminary  Saying.     The  Occasion,  vers. 
1-4. 
(2)   The  Beginning  of  Travail,  vers.  5-8. 

(3)    Persecution  and  the  Paraclete,  vers.  9-13. 

(4)  The  Great  Tribulation,  vers.  14-23. 

(5)  The  Coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  vers.  24-27. 

(6)  Sign  of  the  Fig  Tree,  Nearness  and  Sureness  of 
the  Coming,  vers.  28-31. 

(7)  Its  Time  Unknown,  therefore  Watch,  vers.  32-37. 


DIVISION  VI.     PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION,  cc. 
14-16. 

Subdivision  a.     The  Night  in  which  Jesus  was  Betrayed, 
c.  14. 

(1)    Preliminary  Survey.     The  Plot  to  betray  Jesus, 
vers.  1,  2,  10,  11. 

(2)    Episode    of    the    Anointing   in    Bethany, 
vers.  3-9. 

(3)  Preparations  for  the  Passover,  vers.  12-16. 

(4)  Denunciation  of  the  Traitor,  vers.  17-21. 

(5)  Institution  of  the  Eucharist,  vers.  22-26. 

(6)  Prediction  of  Desertion  and  of  Peter's  Denial, 
vers.  27-31. 

(7)  Gethsemane,  vers.  32^2. 

(8)  Betrayal  and  Arrest,  vers.  43-50. 

(9)    The  Youth  who  escaped  naked,  vers.  51 ,  52. 
(JO)    Peter's  Denial  in  the  High  Priest's  House,  vers. 
53,  54,  65-72. 
(11)   Episode.      Trial    before    the    Sanhedrin, 
vers.  55-64. 

Subdivision  b.     Delivered  up  to  be  Crucified,  15:  1-39. 

(1)  The  Council  accuse  Jesus  to  Pilate,  15: 1-5. 

(2)  The  Offer  of  Jesus  or  Barabbas,  vers.  6-15. 

(3)  The  Soldiers'  Mockery,  vers.  16-20. 

(4)  The  Crucifixion,  vers.  21-32. 

(5)  The  Incidents  of  Jesus'  Death,  vers.  33-39. 


INTRODUCTION 


Subdivision  c.     Burial  and  Empty  Tomb,  15:  40 — 16:  8. 

(1)  Ministering  Women,  vers.  40,  41. 

(2)  The  Burial,  vers.  42-47. 

(3)  The  Tomb  found  Empty.     Message  of  the  Angel, 
16: 1-8. 

Epilogue.     Enumeration  of  the  Resurrection  Appear- 
ances.    Shorter  and  Longer  Ending,  vers.  9-20. 


Like  the  book  of  Acts  the  Gospel  of  Mark  thus  falls  into 
two  Parts  of  three  Divisions  each.1  Of  these  six  Divisions 
scarcely  any  admit  of  dispute  as  to  their  limits.  In  the 
single  case  of  the  terminus  of  Division  IV  of  Part  Second 
there  might  be  doubt.  The  subject  of  the  Division  is  sus- 
tained until  10:  45  and  reaches  there  an  admirable  climax, 
while  the  appended  healing  of  Bartimseus  is  at  all  events 
an  epilogue  forming  a  transition  to  the  next  Division,  with 
which  some  excellent  authorities  have  grouped  it.  Our 
first  evangelist,  however,  marks  the  transition  at  11:  1,  and 
we  have  followed  this  example.  Aside  from  this  minor 
point  the  method  of  R's  grouping  is  so  apparent  that  we 
can  say  almost  without  room  for  contradiction,  here,  and 
here,  are  the  pauses  of  the  evangelist's  thought;  so,  and  so, 
he  conceived  the  grouping  of  his  material. 

2.     Relation  of  Mark  to  Evangelic  Tradition 

From  the  logical  analysis  of  R's  work  we  are  led  to  the 
question  of  the  relation  of  his  composition,  now  generally 
admitted  to  be  the  earliest  of  its  kind  so  far  as  known  to  us, 
to  the  general  stream  of  current  evangelic  tradition.  Thus 
the  Resurrection  itself  is  not  strictly  related  at  all  in  Mark, 
but  only  anticipated.  Indeed,  as  was  already  perceived 
when  its  various  appendices2  were  attached  (ca.  150  a.d.), 
the  Gospel  as  we  have  it  is  a  mere  torso.  The  most  vital 
feature  of  the  whole  story,  Jesus'  fulfillment  of  his  promise3 
to  rally  his  scattered  flock  in  Galilee,  is  wanting.  As  we 
know,  the  tradition  of  the  origin  of  the  Church  through 
Peter's  Revelation  of  the  Risen  Christ  by  Gennesaret,  attested 
by  Paul  and  certain  survivals  of  evangelic  material,was  early 
superseded  by  the  Lukan  form,  which  eliminates  entirely  the 
episode  of  the  disciples'  desertion  and  flight  to  Galilee,  and 

»Cf.  C.  H.  Turner,  art.  "Acts"  in  the  Hastings  D.B.,  i,  pp.  412ff. 
2  16:  9-20  and  the  Shorter  Ending.  3  14:  28. 


INTRODUCTION 


makes  them  quietly  wait  in  Jerusalem  until  endowed  with  the 
Spirit  at  Pentecost.  Only  remnants  of  the  earlier  story, 
which  centered  upon  the  appearance  in  Galilee  to  Peter  and 
them  that  were  with  him,  survive  in  I  Cor.  15 :  1-8 ;  Lk.  22 :32 ; 
Jn.  21 :  1-14,  and  the  fragmentary  end  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter.1 
It  is  commonly  conjectured  that  the  original  ending  of  Mark 
disappeared  or  was  prevented  from  appearing  by  accident; 
but  there  are  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  a  theory, 
if  indeed  mere  surrender  of  the  problem  by  appeal  to  ''acci- 
dent" may  be  called  a  theory.  On  the  contrary  we  have 
evidence  of  the  persistence  of  the  conflict  between  the 
Galilean  tradition  of  Mt.  26:  31,32;  28:  16-20  and  the 
Jerusalemite  of  Lk.  24:  6-12,  33-53  in  the  harmonizing 
appendix  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,2  which  adds  together  the 
Galilean  and  the  Jerusalem  tradition,  but  reverses  the 
representation  of  the  preceding  chapter.  The  suppression  of 
the  original  ending  of  Mark  has  an  entirely  adequate  motive 
in  the  effort  for  harmony,  which  so  late  as  the  origin  of  the 
Western  (/5)  text3  could  even  venture  to  suppress  the  dis- 
crepant pedigree  of  Lk.  3 :  24-38. 

But  Mk.  14:  28  is  not  the  only  promise  whose  fulfillment 
the  evangelist  must  have  intended  to  relate.  That  of 
John's  prediction  of  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost4  is  most 
inadequately  set  forth  in  the  Appendix.5  The  author  of 
1:8  and  14:28  must  have  at  least  intended  to  describe 
both  Jesus'  resurrection  appearance  to  Peter,  with  the  re- 
assembling of  his  scattered  flock,  and  also  the  Pentecostal 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit.  In  short,  the  work  looks  forward 
to  a  conclusion  embodying  the  two  elements  of  the  Apostolic 
Commission  as  we  find  them  united  in  Jn.  20:  19-23,  in 
both  Markan  appendices,  and  more  fully  elaborated  in  the 
story  of  Luke.6  Why  indeed  should  the  evangelist  write 
his  Gospel  at  all  if  not  to  vindicate  that  apostolic  witness 
of  which  the  Church  claimed  to  be  the  bearer? 

However  late  and  ill-fitting  our  present  Endings,  at  least 
they  have  the  merit  of  appreciating  what  was  required  to 
complete  the  gospel  story,  better  than  moderns  who  act  as 
if  our  evangelist  were  at  liberty  to  say  to  his  readers:     "For 


xEv.  Petri,  xiv.  58-60;  Preuschen  Antil.,  p.  18. 

2Jn.  21. 

5  The  manuscripts  and  versions  which  reflect  the  form  of  text  most  widely 
current  in  the  second  century  are  the  Codex  Bezae  (D)  in  Cambridge  with  kindred 
manuscripts,  and  the  old  (Sinaitic  and  Curetonian)  Syriac  and  old  Latin  trans- 
lations. This  is  the  oldest  known  form  of  the  text  and  is  designated  /3;  but  it  is 
by  no  means  uniformly  to  be  preferred  to  the  Alexandrian  a,  which,  though 
later,  represents  a  careful  and  scholarly  revision;  correcting  much  of  the  wild 
license  of  /3. 

4  1:8.  M6:  17   18  BLk  24:  44-49;  Acts  1:1—2:  47. 


INTRODUCTION 


the  sequel  see  the  book  of  Acts  by  my  esteemed  colleague 
Luke."  No;  it  is  as  certain  as  anything  in  the  field  of 
critical  conjecture  can  be,  that  our  evangelist's  story  once 
went  on  to  relate  the  substance  of  the  early  narrative  of 
Acts,  and  may  even  have  wound  up,  as  Acts  does,  with  the 
planting  of  the  gospel  in  Rome.  Points  of  close  affinity 
with  at  least  one  element  of  Acts  are  by  no  means  wanting,1 
and  his  whole  method  of  composition  seems  to  be  a  working 
over  of  Petrine  narrative  from  a  radically  Pauline  point  of 
view,  reminding  us  of  the  structure  of  one  element  of  Acts.2 
But  the  very  fact  that  this  earlier  ending  of  Mark  was  so 
contradictory  of  Luke  as  is  implied  in  the  fragments  that 
remain,  and  so  much  less  honorific  toward  Peter  and  the 
Apostles,  is  quite  enough  to  account  for  its  disappearance 
after  the  publication  of  the  more  extended,  less  radically 
Pauline  work — Luke-Acts.  Mark's  function  was  reduced 
to  that  of  being  "the  interpreter  of  Peter,"  who  was  con- 
ceived (rightly  or  wrongly)  as  confining  himself  to  a  narra- 
tion of  "the  things  either  said  or  done  by  Christ."3 

3.     Mark  and  the  Petrine  Narrative 

Without  attempting  to  set  forth  the  accepted  critical 
theory  of  the  origin  of  our  mutually  interdependent  Gospels 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  the  so-called  Synoptic  or  two- 
document  theory,4  we  may  suitably  interject  at  this  point  a 
statement  of  its  demonstrated  features.  After  70  years  of 
fervid  debate,  the  fundamental  proposition  of  this  theory, 
Mark,  the  literary  groundwork  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  is  now 
admitted.  The  second  principle,  Matthew  and  Luke  inde- 
pendent combiners  of  Mark  with  another  evangelic  writing 
(Q)  principally  made  up  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  is  accepted 
with  almost  equal  unanimity.  Strict  demonstration  de- 
pends upon  disproof  of  the  interdependence  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  in  the  coincident  material  not  found  in  Mark. 
Only  material  of  this  kind  can  certainly  be  assigned  to  Q, 
leaving  the  exact  nature  of  the  teaching  source  and  its  rela- 
tion to  Mark  still  uncertain. 

That  our  evangelist  is  something  more  than  the  mere 
collator  of  discourses  he  had  once  been  accustomed  to  trans- 
late for  Peter,  is  too  obvious  for  dispute.     The  ancient  tra- 

JCf.  Acts  12:  12,  and  see  notes  on  1:  24;  5:  1-20;  6:  20;  7:  1-23;  9:  2-11,  etc. 
2  On   the  attitude  of   the  author  of  Acts  see  Bacon,  "Acts  vs.  Galatians"  in 
Amer.  Journal  of  Theol.,  1907. 

•Papias  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.,  hi,  xxxix.  15. 

*See  the  article  above  referred  to;  Preface,  p.  x. 


INTRODUCTION 


dition  to  this  effect  just  quoted  is  warmly  apologetic  in  pur- 
pose, and  aims  to  show  that  Mark,  although  not  agreeing 
with  Matthew  in  the  "order,"  nevertheless  "made  no  mis- 
take while  he  thus  wrote  down  some  things  as  he  remem- 
bered them;  for  he  made  it  his  one  care  not  to  omit  any- 
thing that  he  had  heard  (hence  the  slight  additions  of  Mat- 
thew aside  from  "oracles"),  or  to  set  down  any  false  state- 
ment therein."  As  much  as  possible  the  tradition  aims  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  Gospel  is  really  the  Memorabilia  of 
Peter,  the  designation  already  conferred  upon  it  by  Justin 
Martyr1  the  contemporary  of  Papias.  Too  close  relation  to 
Peter  is  avoided  in  order  not  to  expose  the  Apostle  to  the 
charge  of  disagreement  with  Matthew. 

How  much  truth  may  underlie  this  high  claim  of  relation 
to  Peter  is  a  matter  for  the  keenest  critical  scrutiny  of  the 
text.  But  even  our  preliminary  survey  of  the  contents  is 
enough  to  prove  that  the  Gospel  is  (or  was)  very  much 
more  than  a  mere  editing  of  Peter's  discourses.  It  collates 
not  merely  reminiscences  of  Peter,  but  many  which  to  say 
the  least  show  no  intrinsic  evidence  of  proceeding  from 
such  a  source,2  and  quite  a  number  which  are  unmistakable 
duplicates  of  matters  already  told  (see  Division  III,  Sub- 
divisions b  and  c,  Criticism).  Moreover,  in  spite  of  the  promi- 
nence of  Peter,  and  the  scenes  about  Peter's  house  in  Caper- 
naum at  certain  salient  points  in  the  narrative,3  on  the 
whole  it  is  impossible  successfully  to  maintain  that  the  com- 
piler has  that  insight  into  the  real  factors  of  the  history, 
the  necessary  progress  and  concatenation  of  events,  which 
we  should  justly  expect  from  one  who  had  had  even  a  modi- 
cum of  personal  acquaintance  with  one  of  the  Twelve.  In 
very  high  degree  Mark's  narrative  is  dominated  by  theo- 
retical considerations,  often  manifestly  derived  from  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  especially  Romans.4 

4.  Relation  to  the  Teaching  Source 

Not  the  Pauline  Epistles  only  affect  Mark's  whole  line  of 
apologetic,  but  his  use  of  the  source  independently  employed 
by  Matthew  and  Luke,5  is  susceptible  of  critical  demonstra- 
tion. And  the  use  thus  made  is  by  no  means  characterized 
by  sympathetic  and  appreciative  insight.     On  the  contrary 

1  Dial,  cvi.  2E.g.,  6:  17-29. 

*1:  16-39;  2:  1-4,  13;  3:20,21;  4:36-38;  5:  21-43;  8:  27-30;  14:29-31,53, 
54,66-72.  ■♦See,  e.g.,  on  4:  11,  12. 

6  This  source,  properly  designated  by  the  symbol  Q,  has  been  by  some  too  has- 
tily identified  with  the  compilation  of  Logia  attributed  by  Papias  to  the  Apostle 
Matthew. 


INTRODUCTION 


Mark  in  all  such  cases  uniformly  pragmatizes,  materializes, 
exaggerates  in  the  interest  of  his  demonstration  of  the 
divine  sonship  of  Jesus  in  the  superhuman  sense  of  13:  32, 
on  the  basis  of  wonders.1  We  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  our  evangelist  (R)  has  used  the  ancient  common  source 
of  Matthew  and  Luke  (Q)  to  embellish  and  supplement  an 
earlier  and  simpler  narrative,  which  not  from  tradition  only, 
but  from  its  intrinsic  characteristics,  we  may  appropriately 
designate  as  Petrine  (P). 

The  process  is  not  that  of  mechanical  addition.  In  fact 
the  Q  elements  are  more  frequently  interjected,  as  if  from 
memory  only.  Brief  supplements  or  editorial  surveys  are 
more  frequent  than  consecutive  extracts,  of  which  there  are 
few.2  Fragments  are  strung  together  sometimes  upon  mere 
catch-words,3  sometimes  with  more  definite  logical  connec- 
tion4 but  with  slight  regard  for  their  original  bearing.  It 
is  as  though  the  type  of  Petrine  narrative  gospel  had  been 
already  too  firmly  fixed  to  admit  of  radical  recasting,  and 
the  new  material  had  been  added  in  adaptation  only,  and 
for  the  most  part  in  the  form  of  memoriter  interpolations 
and  supplements.  Moreover,  the  Q  material  came  into  our 
evangelist's  hands  not  as  a  mere  syntagma  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  but  already  equipped  with  at  least  the  narrative 
introduction  which  relates  John's  Preaching  and  the  Bap- 
tism and  Temptation  of  Jesus.5  In  all  probability  certain 
narratives  which  are  wanting  in  Matthew,  but  which  Luke 
presents  in  association  with  Q,  are  drawn  by  Mark  from  this 
Lukan  source.6  The  dependence  in  the  cases  referred  to  is 
certainly  on  the  side  of  Mark,  not  merely  from  the  nature 
of  the  material,  which  is  intimately  connected  with  the 
special  source  of  Luke,  and  often  bears  on  its  face  the  marks 
of  this  distinctively  humanitarian  narrative,  but  still  more 
because  the  connection  in  Mark  is  invariably  forced  and 
artificial,  showing  clearly  its  later  attachment  to  the  story.7 

Evidence  therefore  exists  that  some  of  the  narrative  sup- 
plements of  Mark  are  also  derived  from  the  Lukan  form  of 
Q  (QLK)-  In  this  category  we  may  surely  place  the 
Cursing  of  the  Fig  Tree,8  which  nearly  all  investigators 
recognize  as  a  pragmatized  form    of  the  Parable  of   the 


1  See,  e.g.,  on  1:  7,  8,  12,  13;  2:  5-10;  3:  22-30,  etc. 
2 E.g.,  1:  2-13;  3:  22-30;  6:  7-13;  13:  5-37.  3 9:  33-50. 

«4:  21-25;  13:  3-37.  «Mt.  3:  1—4:  11  =  Lk.  3:  1-17;  4:  1-12. 

•With  Lk.  7:  36-8:  3  cf.  Mk.  2:  5-10;  15:  40,  41;  with  Lk.  13:  6-9,  Mk.  11: 
12-14,  20-25;  Lk.  21:  1-4;  Mk.  12:  41-44. 

7See  note  on  2:  5-10;  11:  12-14,  20-25;  12:  41-44;  15:  40,  41. 
8 11:  12-14,20-25. 


INTRODUCTION 


Barren  Fig  Tree.1  We  might  even  classify  in  the  same 
group  the  Transfiguration  Story,  interjected  as  it  is  by  Mark, 
with  characteristic  violence  to  context,  between  the  Revela- 
tion to  Peter  8:  29—9:  1  and  its  sequel  9:  11-13.  The  Trans- 
figuration Vision  is  not  indeed  of  the  nature  of  discourse 
material ;  but  it  is  intimately  related  in  content  and  phrase- 
ology with  the  Baptismal  Vision,  which  all  critics  admit  to 
have  formed  part  of  Q  however  the  fact  be  accommodated 
to  the  tradition.  In  its  whole  conception  it  is  of  a  piece  with 
the  Vision  of  Peter,  Acts  10:9-16,  which  takes  the  same 
radical  Pauline  ground  on  the  question  of  distinctions  of 
meats  as  Mk.  7:  1-23,  an  attitude  elsewhere  unparalleled 
in  the  New  Testament. 

In  some  cases  accordingly  where  connection  could  be 
traced  with  Q  material  without  decisive  evidence  of  con- 
nection with  both  Matthew  and  Luke  the  symbol  QLK, 
or  rarely  QMT,  has  been  employed.  In  general  the  sym- 
bol X  (unknown  source)  has  been  preferred  to  such 
conjecture. 

In  two  instances  only  has  R  attempted  agglutination 
of  sayings  into  consecutive  discourses,  though  this  process 
is  carried  already  to  a  considerable  extent  in  QLK  and 
to  a  much  greater  extent  in  QMT.  Part  First  has  one 
such  agglutination  in  the  shape  of  the  Parables  of  the 
Kingdom,2  whose  object  is  to  convey  to  Jesus'  spiritual 
kindred  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  God  unperceived  by 
"those  that  are  without."  Part  Second  has  a  similar  con- 
struction in  the  Eschatological  Discourse,  c.  13,  whose  object 
is  to  forewarn  the  disciples  of  the  second  Coming.  The 
distinctive  teaching  of  Jesus  is  not  conveyed  as  in  Matthew 
and  Luke,  but  partly,  as  we  shall  see,  in  the  activity  of  Jesus, 
partly  in  the  instruction  which  accompanies  the  Revelation 
of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Cross. 

5.  The  Anti-Judaistic  Point  of  View  of  R 

The  elements  we  have  designated  P  and  Q  forming  to 
all  appearance  the  chief  factors  of  our  Second  Gospel,  as 
intrinsically  shown,  what  character  may  be  attributed  to 
the  work  of  the  compiler  (R)  on  the  same  evidence? 

We  have  already  intimated  that  on  that  vexed  question 
of  the  first  century  Church,  distinctions  of  meats,  his  stand 
is  that  of  a  radical  Paulinist.3  It  is  not  only  that  he  like 
Paul,4  like  the  author  of  Acts  10:  9-16,  "knows  and  is  per- 

»Lk.  13:  6-9.  2  4:  1-34.  3  7:  1-23.  *Rom.  14:  14. 


INTRODUCTION 


suaded  in  the  Lord  that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself," 
but  that  he  resembles  those  too  radical  Paulinists  of  Corinth, 
who  required  to  be  reminded  by  their  chosen  representative 
that  his  own  rule  that  "all  things  are  lawful"  was  held 
subject  to  the  qualifying  principle  of  consideration  for  the 
weaker  conscience  of  the  scrupulous.  Like  these  Corinthian 
Paulinists  R  delights  in  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  without  sufficiently 
discriminating  between  such  as  are  spectacular  and  outward, 
and  such  as  are  more  abiding  and  fundamental,  faith,  hope, 
and  love.  His  independence  of  the  Jewish  religious  observ- 
ances is  not  only  made  apparent  in  the  series  of  conflicts  in 
which  Jesus  defends  his  disciples  in  the  non-observance  of 
fasts  and  sabbaths1  with  sweeping  declarations  of  the 
power  of  the  new  faith  to  develop  its  own  forms  of  re- 
ligious expression,2  but  shows  itself  still  more  distinctly  in  a 
subsequent  description  of  the  lustrations  of  "the  Pharisees 
and  all  the  Jews,"  which  is  as  contemptuous  in  tone  as  it  is 
exaggerated  in  fact.3  Indeed  we  must  regard  it  as  more 
than  mere  independence  of  legalism,  when  borrowing  one 
of  Paul's  proof-texts  against  the  Judaizers,4  R  denounces 
the  whole  ceremonial  system  of  Mosaism  as  "doctrines  and 
precepts  of  men,"  while  not  merely  the  representatives  of 
the  Synagogue  are  denounced  as  "hypocrites"  but  the 
Jewish  people  as  a  whole  as  a  "people"  that  "honor  God 
with  their  lips  while  their  heart  is  far  from  him,"  and 
Jewish  worship  as  "vain."5  From  the  law  of  Moses  our  evan- 
gelist appeals  explicitly  to  the  higher  law  of  God  antecedent 
to  Mosaism,  and  denounces  as  adultery  the  marital  relations 
Mosaism  allows.6  One  who  could  say  of  the  Jewish  legalistic 
ideal  that  he  had  fulfilled  its  utmost  requirement,  and  who 
even  received  the  loving  look  of  Jesus  in  token  that  this  pro- 
fession was  both  true  and  sincere,  is  warned  nevertheless  that 
he  is  still  lacking  in  the  essential  requirement  for  "eternal 
life"  until  like  the  rest  of  Jesus'  disciples  he  leaves  all  and 
follows  him.7  Conversely  a  scribe  who  strikes  off  the  fetters 
of  legalism  by  declaring  that  Jesus'  simple  new  command- 
ment of  love  to  God  and  man  "is  much  more  than  all  whole 
burnt-offering  and  sacrifice"  is  commended  as  "not  far 
from  the  kingdom  of  God."8  Scrutiny  of  this  unbroken 
succession  of  radical  anti-legalistic  instances  and  utterances 


1  2:  18— 3:6.  22:  21,  22.  3See  on  7:  1-4.  *  Col.  2:  22. 

6  7:  6,  7.  Luke  cancels  this  denunciation  of  Judaism.  Matthew  cancels  only 
R's  explanation  of  the  practice  of  "the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,"  vers.  3,  4,  but 
adds  three  verses  to  show  that  its  application  is  not  to  the  Law  itself,  which  was 
"planted  by  the  Heavenly  Father,"  but  to  the  Pharisaic  "hedge  of  the  Law."  Mt.  15: 
12-14. 

•10:1-10.  7  10:  17-22.  8  i2:  32-34. 


INTRODUCTION 


in  the  light  of  the  softening  and  toning  down,  or  even  com- 
plete inversion,  they  have  received  in  process  of  transcrip- 
tion by  Matthew  and  Luke,1  will  lead  us  to  realize  with  how 
vigorous  a  spirit  of  Pauline  radicalism  we  are  dealing  in 
these  supplements  of  R;  for  in  the  underlying  P  material 
there  is  little  if  any  trace  of  it.  No  passage  of  the  entire 
Gospel  is  more  certainly  editorial  than  7:3,  4.  Yet  who 
can  imagine  that  this  explanation,  exaggerated  and  con- 
temptuous as  it  is,  was  either  written  by  one  of  Jewish  pro- 
clivities, or  required  by  readers  familiar  with  the  tenets  and 
practice  of  Judaism? 

But  this  anti-Judaistic  redaction  is  by  no  means  restricted 
to  a  few  editorial  clauses.  It  enters  deep  into  the  substance 
of  the  Gospel.  Side  by  side  with  R's  strong  protest  against 
Jewish  legalism  stands  his  adoption  of  the  Pauline  apolo- 
getic on  the  unbelief  of  Israel.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
representing  a  presentation  of  Christianity  as  consisting  pri- 
marily of  commandments  to  be  observed,  a  new  royal  law  of 
liberty  substituting  deeper  and  more  inward  requirements 
for  the  yoke  of  Mosaic  ordinances,  is  absolutely  ignored.  In 
place  of  the  whole  content  of  the  teaching  in  Q  we  have  in 
Mark,  as  already  observed,  only  the  two  agglutinated  dis- 
courses of  cc.  4  and  13,  both  of  which  deal  with  the  rejection 
of  Israel.  The  Teaching  in  Parables  is  conceived  as  ex- 
pressly intended  to  fulfill  the  Isaian  prophecy  of  the  "hard- 
ening of  Israel."  Jesus  delivers  to  his  spiritual  kin  "the 
mystery  of  the  kingdom,"  while  his  kindred  after  the  flesh 
as  "outsiders"  perceive  nothing  but  dark  sayings.2  The 
parables  themselves  simply  proclaim  the  coming  of  the 
Kingdom.  So  with  the  Eschatological  Discourse  also.3 
It  is  introduced  after  the  Denunciation  of  the  Scribes4  apro- 
pos of  the  prediction  of  the  Demolition  of  the  Temple,5 
literally  fulfilled  in  70  a.d.  In  it  R  even  speaks  of  Palestin- 
ian Christians  as  "  they  that  are  in  Judsea.6 

6.  R's  Attitude  toward  the  Apostolic  Authorities 

An  equally  ultra-Pauline  attitude  is  assumed  by  R  toward 
the  kindred  of  Jesus,  the  so-called  desposyni,  so  reverenced 
in  the  mother-church  in  Jerusalem  since  the  appearance  of 
"Jesus'  mother  and  his  brethren"  in  Acts  1: 14,  and  toward 
the  claims  to  primacy  put  forth  in  behalf  of  Peter  and  the 
older  apostles.    Jesus'  mother  and  brethren  appear  but  twice 

JCf.,  e.g.,  Mt.  19:  16-22,  or  Lk.  10:  25-28.  2See  on  4:  11,  12 

=»C.  13.  *  12:  38-44.  &13:2.  "13:  14. 


INTRODUCTION 


in  all  the  Gospel;  once  when  they  intervene  "to  lay  hands 
on  him,  for  they  said  he  is  beside  himself/'  and  Jesus  turns 
from  them  to  cast  in  his  lot  with  his  spiritual  kindred  "who 
do  the  will  of  God";  and  once  in  the  Rejection  in  Nazareth1 
where  Jesus  quotes  the  proverb,  "A  prophet  is  not  without 
honor  save  in  his  own  country  and  among  his  own  kin,  and 
in  his  own  house."  In  both  instances  both  parallels  cancel 
all  reference  to  the  unbelief  of  Jesus'  kindred. 

Sight  by  hypnotic  suggestion  has  few  more  curious  illus- 
trations than  the  discovery  by  writers  under  the  spell  of  the 
Papias  tradition  of  traces  in  Mark  of  special  regard  for 
Peter!  How  different  in  this  respect  is  our  First  Gospel. 
In  Mt.  16:  17  Peter  receives  the  name  and  station  of 
Rock-foundation  of  the  Church,  organ  of  the  divine  revela- 
tion of  the  Messiahship.  In  Mark's  parallel  we  have  no 
intimation  whatever  of  any  kind  of  revelation;  merely  a 
command  not  to  reveal  the  secret  with  which  all  the  Twelve 
have  long  since  been  intrusted,  and  a  stinging  rebuke  of 
Peter's  unworthy  views  of  the  Christ  in  language  transferred 
by  R  from  the  Temptation  in  Q,  "Get  thee  behind  me 
Satan!"2  Such  is  the  first  separate  mention  of  Peter. 
Next  we  have  in  the  Transfiguration  Story,  Peter's  unac- 
ceptable proposal,  with  the  comment  "for  he  wist  not  what 
to  answer,  for  they  were  sore  afraid."3  Next  Peter's  plea 
for  special  reward  for  himself  and  the  Twelve,  answered  by 
the  assurance  to  "everyone"  of  compensation  for  such 
renunciations  in  the  earthly  brotherhood  "and  in  the  world 
to  come  eternal  life."  To  this  is  added  the  warning  of 
" persecutions,"  and  specifically  that  "many  that  are  first 
shall  be  last,  and  the  last  first."4  Next  and  last  is  Peter's 
boast,  "Although  all  shall  be  stumbled  yet  will  not  I," 
followed  by  the  humiliating  story  of  denial.5  Such  are  the 
sole  instances  of  a  separate  role  for  Peter  in  this  supposedly 
Petrine  Gospel!  It  is  true  that  the  opening  scenes  are  at 
Peter's  home,  where  Peter  in  company  with  three  others  is 
called  from  his  fishing.  This  P  element  was  fundamental 
and  ineradicable.  We  cannot  imagine  the  most  virulent 
Paulinist  wishing  Peter's  part  here  to  be  more  subordinated 
than  it  is.  It  is  also  true  that  the  original  form  of  the  P 
tradition  must  have  had  an  account  of  Peter's  rehabilita- 
tion, more  than  atoning,  in  the  glory  shed  upon  the  head 
of  the  Apostle  who  had  been  first  to  recognize  the  risen 
Lord,  for  all  the  humiliation  of  rebukes  and  denial.    But 


'6:  1-6,  see  note.  28:  29-33.  39:  5.  6. 

«10:  28-31.  614:  29-31,  54,  66-72. 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 


this  is  precisely  what  has  first  been  modified  by  R  and  finally 
cut  out.  Instead  of  Peter  playing  the  splendid  and  surely 
historical  role  after  his  own  "turning  again"  of  "strengthen- 
ing his  brethren"1  R  attributes  this  restoration  of  the  scat- 
tered flock  in  Galilee  to  the  personal  intervention  of  Jesus,2 
and  makes  the  first  intimation  of  the  resurrection  that  of 
the  angel  to  the  women  at  the  Sepulcher.  Thereafter  must 
once  have  followed  a  manifestation  of  the  risen  Lord  to  Peter 
and  the  rest,  according  to  the  angel's  message.  But  this 
has  been  cancelled  in  all  existing  witnesses  to  the  text, 
leaving  either  a  blank,  or  one  of  two  rival  substitutes. 

If  we  ask,  What  has  our  evangelist  to  tell  of  James  and 
John,  next  in  order  of  rank  to  Peter  among  the  oriental 
churches,  the  answer  is:  These,  like  the  Lord's  brethren, 
appear  but  twice:  once  when  they  are  rebuked  for  their  in- 
tolerant spirit  and  assured,  in  reversal  of  the  principle  as 
quoted  by  Matthew,  "He  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us"8; 
a  second  time  when  they  request  for  themselves  the  highest 
seats  in  the  heavenly  kingdom,  and  are  again  rebuked  for 
their  self-seeking  ambition  to  "lord  it  over"  their  brethren. 
Their  request  for  special  favor  brings  them  only  the  assur- 
ance of  sharing  the  martyrdom  of  Jesus,  with  a  lesson  on 
the  principle  so  dear  to  Paul4  of  rank  through  service.5 

It  is  true  again  that  "Peter,  James  and  John"  in  three 
instances  play  a  separate  role  in  this  Gospel,  which  is  cer- 
tainly a  role  of  profound  significance.  But  that  significance 
has  nothing  to  do  with  claims  to  primac}'-  or  authority  for 
them  or  for  the  rest  of  the  Twelve.  Against  all  such  claims 
R  would  seem  to  find  the  sharpest  phrases  all  too  weak. 
The  special  prominence  given  to  these  three  on  the  three 
occasions  of  the  raising  of  Jairus'  daughter,  the  Transfigura- 
tion, and  Gethsemane,  is  much  more  probably  connected 
with  the  martyr  fate  wherein  Peter  as  well  as  James  and 
John  redeemed  an  offer  and  undertaking  of  which  their 
performance  had  at  first  fallen  short.  For  if  for  a  time 
Peter  and  James  and  John  may  have  seemed  to  some  on 
questions  of  authority  and  doctrine  to  be  names  antago- 
nistic to  Paul,  "in  their  death  they  were  not  divided."6  The 
most  ultra-Pauline  church  in  70-80  a.d.  must  have  treated 
the  three  as    worthy  of  all  honor  as   martyrs  and  wit- 


*Lk.  22:32.  214:28.  3  9:  38-40. 

<  Phil.  2:  5-11.  610:  35-45. 

"The  earliest  evidence  for  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  is  Clement  of  Rome,  ad 
Cor.,  v,  ca.  95  a.d.  Much  later  is  Jn.  21:  18,19.  James  was  beheaded  in  44  a.d. 
(Acts  12:  1,  2).  John  was  also  "slain  by  the  Jews"  as  Papias  attests,  probably 
ca.  64  a.d.  "fulfilling  together  with  his  brother  Christ's  prophecy  concerning  them, 
and  their  own  confession  and  undertaking  in  his  behalf."    See  on  Mk.  10:  37-39. 


INTRODUCTION 


nesses  of  the  truth.  As  the  martyr-apostles  they  are  appro- 
priately made  the  exclusive  witnesses  of  the  three  scenes  of 
Jesus'  conflict  with  the  power  of  death.  Individually,  as 
we  have  seen,  Peter,  James,  and  John  never  appear  on 
the  scene  except  for  purposes  of  rebuke. 

7.    The  Paulinism  of  Mark 

Our  review  of  R's  references  to  Judaism  and  its  practices, 
the  kindred  of  Jesus,  the  Twelve,  and  the  Pillar-apostles, 
will  at  least  suggest  that  to  our  Roman  evangelist  the  Gen- 
tile atmosphere  of  the  great  Pauline  church  to  which  his 
work  was  given  was  not  uncongenial.  But  these  evidences 
of  Paulinism  are  merely  negative.  The  conclusive  reason 
for  describing  Mark  as  the  most  Pauline  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  is  the  manner  in  which  the  evangelist  conceives 
his  task.  Neither  Matthew  nor  Luke  considers  his  task 
performed  without  embodying  the  substance  of  the  Sayings 
or  teaching  of  the  Lord.  Matthew  in  particular  regards 
it  as  the  very  essence  of  an  evangelist's  duty  to  "teach 
men  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  Jesus  had  com- 
manded." Mark  certainly  was  not  ignorant  of  such  teach- 
ings or  commandments  of  the  Lord,  even  if  we  refuse  to 
admit  his  acquaintance  with  the  particular  document  em- 
ployed by  Matthew  and  Luke.  And  yet  he  leaves  his 
readers  completely  without  information  on  the  law  of  Jesus. 
His  effort  is  simply  to  produce  belief  in  his  person  as  Son 
of  God.  He,  like  the  fourth  evangelist,  writes  that  his 
readers  "may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God,  and  by  believing  may  have  life  through  his 
name."  This  is  the  dominant  idea  of  the  whole  Gospel. 
But  one  Division  is  particularly  devoted  to  the  condition 
which  the  teaching  of  Jesus  imposes  to  the  obtaining  of 
"eternal  life."  It  is  Division  IV,  the  Division  following 
upon  Jesus'  repudiation  of  Judaism,1  the  Division  occupied 
throughout  with  the  Doctrine  of  the  Cross.  Here  at  last 
we  do  find  our  evangelist  giving  the  content  of  Jesus'  mes- 
sage. It  is  simply  the  Pauline  principle  of  "the  mind 
that  was  in  Christ  Jesus,"  the  continual  reiteration  of  the 
doctrine,  "He  that  would  save  his  life  shall  lose  it,"  "He 
that  followeth  me  let  him  take  up  his  cross  and  come  after 
me."  We  have  no  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  but  we  have  its 
equivalent  here  in  practical  application.  What  "they  of 
old  time"  said  is  illustrated  in  the  Pharisees'  question  con- 

!7:  1-23. 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 


cerning  divorce,  with  Jesus'  answer  setting  man's  putting 
asunder  with  God's  joining  together.  What  "the  righteous- 
ness of  God"  entails  over  and  above  that  of  the  scribes' 
"keeping  of  the  commandments"  is  illustrated  in  the  in- 
quiry of  the  rich  young  man,  "Good  Master,  what  shall  I 
do  to  inherit  eternal  life?"  Jesus'  answer  approves  his 
having  "kept  the  commandments,"  but  points  to  God 
as  the  sole  standard  of  "goodness"  and  inculcates  the 
renunciation  exemplified  by  himself  and  his  followers 
and  their  treading  the  way  of  the  cross  as  the  only  avenue 
to  "eternal  life."  This  Division  on  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Cross  is  Mark's  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Let  the  reader 
simply  subtract  mentally  the  Markan  element  from  Luke, 
or  better  still  from  Matthew,  and  note  in  what  sort  of  rela- 
tion the  remainder  will  stand  to  this  narrative  of  "the  mind 
that  was  in  Christ  Jesus."  He  will  scarcely  find  it  necessary, 
thereafter,  if  he  have  any  appreciation  of  the  distinctive 
elements  of  Paulinism,  to  count  the  number  of  Pauline 
terms,  frequent  as  they  are  in  Mark,  or  even  to  note  the 
constant  adaptations  of  Pauline  tenets.  The  Paulinism 
of  Mark  has  recently  been  denied  by  a  very  able  critic,1 
though  more,  it  would  seem,  in  a  spirit  of  bravado  than  of 
scientific  impartiality.  Such  denial  can  only  rest  upon  an 
utter  misconception  of  the  really  distinctive  feature.  The 
Paulinism  of  Mark  is  supremely  manifest  in  this  evangelist's 
whole  conception  of  what  constitutes  the  apostolic  message. 

8.    The   Earliest    Form  of   Evangelic    Tradition 
at  Rome 

The  Paulinism  of  Mark,  however,  does  not  exclude  a  very 
real  dependence  on  the  ancient  Petrine  tradition;  for  Paul 
himself  was  dependent  on  this.2 

We  have  seen  that  the  attitude  of  our  Gospel  of  Mark  in 
its  present  form  toward  Peter  in  particular,  but  in  fact 
toward  all  the  most  revered  authorities  of  the  Jewish- 
Christian  church,  is  completely  the  reverse  of  what  would 
be  expected  from  a  trusted  companion  and  disciple  of  Peter. 
This  very  fact  tends  to  show  that  the  ancient  tradition  of 
"the  Elder"  quoted  by  Papias  was  something  more  than 
such  traditions  usually  prove  to  be — a  mere  inference 
drawn  from  the  writing  itself.  At  least  the  inference — if 
such  it  was — that  "Mark  had  been  the  interpreter  of  Peter" 

1  Schweitzer,  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede,  1907. 
2ICor.  11:  23;  15:  3-7;  Gal.  1:  18. 


INTRODUCTION 


was  not  drawn  from  the  Gospel  in  its  present  form.  What 
connection  the  Mark  of  apostolic  story1  may  have  had  with 
the  element  P  which  forms  the  substratum  of  the  Gospel 
is  a  difficult,  but  by  no  means  hopeless,  question.  Its  solu- 
tion will  depend  largely  on  the  more  fundamental  character- 
istics of  this  "Petrine"  groundwork. 

The  Roman  origin  of  our  Gospel  in  both  its  primitive  and 
developed  form  is  so  generally  recognized  and  so  strongly 
supported  both  by  early  tradition  and  by  internal  evidence 
that  further  proof  seems  hardly  necessary.  It  is  at  Rome, 
in  the  writings  of  Hermas  (ca.  135  a.d.)2  and  Justin  Martyr,3 
that  we  find  the  first  evidences  outside  the  New  Testament 
of  the  use  of  this  Gospel.  Its  own  striking  peculiarities, 
whether  of  language  (replete  with  Latinisms)  or  of  doc- 
trinal standpoint,  would  of  themselves  be  almost  conclusive. 
The  intense  devotion  of  the  evangelist  to  Pauline  principles 
of  the  more  obvious,  external  kind,  without  adequate  appre- 
ciation of  the  Pauline  mysticism  in  its  subtler,  more  refined 
forms,  such  as  characterizes  the  Ephesian  Gospel  of  John,  is 
precisely  what  we  should  expect  from  the  predominantly 
Gentile-Christian  church  at  Rome,  to  which  Paul  wrote  the 
most  carefully  elaborated  of  his  Epistles,  especially  plead- 
ing for  more  consideration  for  the  scrupulous  Jewish-Chris- 
tian brother,  whose  weak  conscience  would  be  defiled  by  too 
unqualified  application  of  the  Pauline  principle  of  liberty 
in  respect  to  sabbaths  and  distinctions  of  meats.4 

A  stronger  evidence  of  the  western,  post-apostolic  stand- 
point of  R  than  that  of  language,  or  Pauline  anti-legalism, 
may  be  found,  if  our  contention  is  correct,  in  the  adjustment 
of  Division  VI  to  occidental  views  in  respect  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  Easter  Sunday.  As  is  well  known,  the  Eastern 
church  continued  until  ca.  200  a.d.  the  practice  of  observing 
Passover  on  the  Fourteenth  Nisan,  not  however  by  a  feast, 
but,  reversing  the  practice  of  the  Jews,  by  a  fast  commemo- 
rative of  the  Lord's  death.  The  fast  seems  to  have  been 
terminated  by  an  Agape  or  "breaking  of  bread"  at  dawn 
of  Nisan  15,5  these  dates  being  of  course  independent  of  the 


'Acts  12:  12,  25;  13:  5;  15:  39;  Col.  4:  10;  Philem.  24;  II  Tim.  4:  11,  and 
I  Pt.  5:  13. 

2 Sim.,  ix.  20;  Mand.,  ii.  2.  8  Dial.,  lxxxviii  and  cvi. 

*Rom.  14:  1—15:  13. 

6  This  was  called  "celebrating  the  mystery  of  the  Lord's  resurrection"  and 
occurred  "on  the  same  day"  as  the  Jewish  feast,  the  same  day  on  which  the  Lord 
had  suffered  (Apollinaris  ap.  Pasch.  Chron.,  Polycrates  ap.  Euseb.  H .  E.  V,  xxiv. 
Iff.).  From  Jn.  21  we  infer  that  the  breaking  of  bread  was  at  dawn,  not  in  the 
evening  as  most  authorities  hold.  At  all  events  it  was  reckoned  as  occurring  on 
the  same  day,  and  that  day  by  Jewish  reckoning  the  15th  Nisan,  which  had  begun 
at  6  p.m.  of  the  preceding  day. 


INTRODUCTION 


days  of  the  week.  The  Ephesian  Gospel  still  reflects  this 
practice,  called  Quartodecimanism,  or  "observance  of  the 
fourteenth  day"  (of  Nisan),  in  its  transfer  of  *ne  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  from  the  night  of  the  betrayal  to  the 
Miracle  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread  in  Galilee,1  and  by  placing 
the  crucifixion  on  the  14th  Nisan  in  contradiction  to  the 
Synoptic  (Markan)  representation.2  So  early  as  154  a.d. 
Poly  carp  as  representative  of  oriental  practice  resisted  the 
endeavor  of  Anicetus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  persuade  him  to 
the  Roman  weekly  observance,  which  terminated  the  annual 
fast  (cf.  Mk.  2:  20)  on  Easter  Sunday. 

Polycarp  would  not  swerve  from  a  practice  which  he  had 
the  best  of  reasons  for  maintaining  as  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  themselves.  But  our  Gospel  of  Mark  is  anti- 
Quartodeciman.  Against  all  the  historical  probabilities,3 
as  well  as  against  striking  indications  of  its  own  under- 
lying groundwork  (P),  R  insists  on  identifying  the  last 
supper  with  the  Passover,  and  actually  dates  the  crucifixion 
on  the  15th  Nisan,  the  very  day  which  according  to  his  own 
(embodied)  narrative  the  conspirators  had  made  every  ar- 
rangement to  avoid.4  This  agrees  with  Roman  practice, 
and  the  compliance  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is  typical  of  the 
submission  at  last  enforced  by  Roman  predominance  even 
in  the  home  of  Polycarp  and  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  as 
will  appear  from  the  analytical  study  of  the  Division  in 
question  this  representation  does  not  agree  with  the  funda- 
mental narrative,  nor  with  Paul,  nor  with  the  real  probabili- 
ties of  the  case,  any  better  than  with  the  Ephesian  Gospel 
and  the  ancient  Quartodeciman  rite.  The  latter  had  been 
handed  down  on  the  witness  of  Polycarp,  a  Christian  by  his 
own  testimony  since  the  year  69  a.d.,  by  the  Apostles  them- 
selves. R's  substitution  of  the  Christian  sacrament,  ob- 
served not  annually,  but  weekly,  for  the  Passover  of  the 
Jews,  contains  an  intimation  that  this  feast  is  to  be  no  more 
observed  until  fulfilled  in  the  kingdom  of  God.5  He  effects  a 
readjustment  of  dates  so  that  the  observance  of  the  Four- 
teenth Nisan  could  no  longer  be  called  a  commemoration 
of  "Christ  the  Passover  sacrificed  for  us/'6  nor  "the  true 
Passover  of  the  Lord,  the  great  sacrifice,  when  instead  of 
the  lamb,  the  Son  of  God  was  slain."7  These  are  signifi- 
cant indications  of  the  region  which  he  represents. 


JCf.  Jn.  13  with  Jn.  6:  48-59.  2Jn.  13:  29;  18:  28;  19:  31. 

3  See  Division  vi,  Criticism,  Subdivision  a. 

nik.  14:  2.  614:  25.  •  I  Cor.  5:  7. 

7  Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis  (ca.  170  a.d.)  ap.  Chron.  Pasch. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 


9.  Date  of  Composition  op  Mark 

As  to  the  period  also  we  are  not  left  without  evidence. 
Rome  as  the  scene  and  Nero's  persecution  (64  a.d.)  as  the 
occasion  of  Peter's  martyrdom  is  supported  by  a  very  strong 
array  of  early  testimony,  with  which  must  be  included 
I  Pt.  5:  13,  even  if — as  seems  most  probable — this  writing 
of  the  later  years  of  Domitian  (90-95  a.d.)  be  not  from  the 
hand  of  the  Apostle.  In  Jn.  21 :  18  the  allusion  to  Peter's 
martyrdom  seems  to  bring  his  "carrying  away"  from  the 
flock  of  Jesus'  first  fold1  into  immediate  connection  with 
his  martyrdom,  as  had  been  the  case  with  Paul.  Even 
apart  from  this  the  complete  silence  of  Paul's  own  letters 
from  Rome  makes  it  clear  that  such  stay  as  Peter  had 
in  Rome  was  at  least  of  the  briefest.  The  testimony  of 
Irenseus  (ca.  189  a.d.),  a  better  witness  for  Roman  than  for 
Asiatic  writings,  is  explicit  that  Mark  wrote  after  the  death 
of  Peter,  and  is  borne  out  by  the  implication  of  the  Papias 
fragment  ("Mark  who  had  been  the  interpreter  of  Peter 
wrote,"  etc.),  and  even  by  the  futile  attempt  of  the  divergent 
form  of  the  tradition  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  to  bring  the 
writing  under  the  imprimatur  of  Peter  without  making  him 
responsible  for  all  its  contents.2  Even  the  very  beginnings 
of  the  composition  must  therefore  date  almost  as  late  as  the 
outbreak  of  the  Jewish  war  (66  a.d.),  while  elements  from 
Q,  to  which  we  must  certainly  assign  the  great  discourse 
on  the  overthrow  of  the  temple3  cannot  have  been  attached 
until  some  time  later,  in  all  probability  not  until  the  P  narra- 
tive had  acquired  a  degree  of  authority  in  the  Roman  com- 
munity which  forbade  for  the  time  being  a  very  large  ad- 
mixture from  gospels  of  so  completely  different  type  as  those 
which  made  the  "commandments  of  the  Lord"  their  prin- 
cipal nucleus.4  In  spite  of  much  endeavor  to  base  upon  the 
eschatological  chapter5  and  its  relation  to  the  parallels,  an 
argument  for  dating  this  Gospel  earlier  than  70  a.d.,  it  is  the 
very  reverse  which  should  properly  be  inferred  from  the 
chapter.  For  the  intended  sense  of  the  separate  verses  we 
must  refer  to  the  notes.  Here  it  must  suffice  to  say  the 
author's  prime  object  is  to  prevent  the  agitations  and  chili- 
astic  excesses  which  the  accomplishment  of  "all  these  things"6 
would  inevitably  tend  to  produce  among  Christians,  espe- 
cially   Palestinian    Christians.     This  conservative  effort  is 


1  Jn.  21:  15-17;  cf.  10:  16.  2  Ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  VI,  xiv.  6. 

8C.  13.  *Cf.  Mt.  28:  20.  *Mk.  13. 

8Ver.  4;  note  the  reference  to  ver.  2. 


INTRODUCTION 


made  at  the  same  time  that  he  holds  them  firmly  to  their 
hope  in  the  sure  fulfillment  of  "the  promise  of  his  Coming," 
and  exhorts  to  watchfulness.  Troubles  of  all  kinds  are  to 
be  expected  from  the  start,  especially  persecutions;  but  "be 
not  agitated."  Only  when  the  gospel  has  been  proclaimed 
to  the  whole  world  can  the  end  come.1  Such  is  R's  first  para- 
graph.2 

In  the  second3  he  is  more  specific.  "They  which  are  in 
Judaea"  will  undergo  sufferings  unparalleled.  The  Danielic 
vision  of  "the  abomination  which  makes  desolate"  will  be 
fulfilled  to  them  (see  note  ibid.).  Only  God's  merciful 
"shortening  of  the  days"4  will  preserve  them.  All  this 
will  result  in  the  rise  of  many  "false  Christs  and  false  proph- 
ets" who  will  say,  "  Lo,  here  is  Christ,  or  Lo  there."  Believe 
them  not !    Be  not  led  astray.     I  have  forewarned  you. 

In  the  third  paragraph5  R  presents  the  real  signs  of  the 
Coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  which  are  so  entirely  supernatural 
that  confusion  with  earthly  events,  even  the  Great  Tribula- 
tion in  Judsea,  should  be  wholly  impossible  for  men  fore- 
warned. The  parables  of  the  Fig  Tree  and  of  the  Watchful 
Servants  set  forth  in  conclusion  the  two  aspects  of  sound 
teaching:  1.  The  Coming  will  not  be  until  the  harvest  is 
fully  ripe.  2.  Nevertheless  it  will  be  as  a  thief  in  the  night, 
overtaking  the  careless  unawares. 

Surely  if  any  inference  is  to  be  drawn  from  an  outline  of 
this  exhortation  against  taking  earthly  commotions  and 
tribulations,  however  great,  as  anything  more  than  general 
precursors  of  the  Coming,  it  must  be  (since  the  Great  Tribu- 
lation of  "those  that  are  in  Judsea"  is  certainly  alluded  to) 
that  the  author  has  already  had  experience  of  this,  and 
knows  that  it  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  actual  Coming, 
which  must  be  awaited  still  with  patience,  quiet  confidence, 
and  watchfulness.6 

But  certain  details,  especially  in  comparison  with  Matthew, 
are  supposed  to  show  that  the  catastrophe  of  70  a.d.  had 
not  yet  occurred.  For  the  supposed  reference  to  the  temple 
as  still  standing  in  ver.  14,  see  note  ibid.  Again  in  ver.  24 
the  Coming  is  put  "In  those  days,  after  that  tribulation" 
(in  Judsea).  In  both  cases  Matthew  becomes  more  specific. 
It  is  widely  maintained  that  even  if  Mark  himself  is  writing 
shortly  after  70  a.  d.,  at  least  he  is  here  transcribing  an  older 
document   (Matthew  here  representing  the  more  original 


1  Ver.  10.  2  13:4-13.  3  Vers.  14-23. 

4  See  note  on  13:  20.  *  Vers.  24-37. 

•Vers.  13,  21-23,  30,  31,  32-37. 


INTRODUCTION 


form)  in  which  the  Coming  was  looked  for  if  not  before  the 
demolition  of  the  temple,  at  all  events  "immediately  after 
the  tribulation  of  those  days."  All  that  need  here  be  said 
is  to  admit  the  contrast.  We  should  not  have  such  a  composi- 
tion as  Mk.  13  at  all  if  the  writer  had  not  found  occasion  for 
it  in  the  recent  occurrence  of  the  demolition  of  the  temple 
and  Great  Tribulation  for  "those  in  Judaea."  More  particu- 
larly it  would  seem  to  have  been  for  the  very  purpose  of 
quieting  the  agitation  of  those  who  believed  that  the  Coming 
would  be  "immediately  after  that  tribulation"  that  he 
wrote;  though  he  himself  expected  the  Coming  within  the 
lifetime  of  Jesus'  contemporaries.1  That  a  still  later  writer 
with  more  sympathy  for  Jewish-Christian  apocalyptic  hopes 
inserts  the  little  word  "immediately"  where  Mark  had  only 
said  "In  those  days  after  that  tribulation,"  shows  only  the 
difference  in  point  of  view  between  a  Palestinian  evangelist 
whose  chief  aim  is  the  affirmative  one  of  encouraging  the 
belief  that  the  Coming  is  near,  and  a  Roman  evangelist 
whose  chief  aim  is  to  discourage  the  belief  that  it  is  im- 
mediately impending.2  We  have  occasion  here  for  assum- 
ing neither  an  older  document,  nor  an  older  form  of  Mark, 
but  only  (if  we  are  not  resting  too  heavily  on  a  single  word) 
that  both  Mark  and  his  more  sanguine  transcriber  Matthew 
wrote  within  a  decade  or  so  after  the  Great  Tribulation.  If 
we  knew  just  the  year  in  which  Matthew  fixed  its  termina- 
tion, our  dating  might  be  more  exact.  As  it  is,  Mark  must 
be  dated  about  70-75  a.d.,  and  Matthew  but  very  few  years 
later.  The  former  leaves  open  a  period  equal  to  the  expec- 
tation of  life  of  Jesus'  contemporaries  before  the  Coming.3 
The  latter,  with  the  same  absolute  terminus,4  thinks  of  it  in 
closer  connection  with  the  sufferings  of  his  countrymen  in 
the  Great  Tribulation. 

10.    Historical  Value  of  the  Contents 

If  we  may  attribute  our  canonical  Mark  to  some  ardently 
Pauline  evangelist  writing  in  Rome  ca.  75  a.d.,  and  may 
also  consider  that  he  builds  upon  the  basis  of  an  ancient 
Petrine  tradition,  though  not  without  drastic  recasting  and 
supplementation  from  Q  and  from  other  sources,  the  ques- 
tion finally  confronts  us  of  the  value  of  this  compilation 
as  a  source  for  the  historical  career  of  Jesus. 

We  have   three  bases  of  comparison:    1.   The   Pauline 

1  Ver.  30.  2  With  Mt.  24:  14  cf.  Mk.  13:  7. 

3  13:  30.  4Mt.  24:34. 


INTRODUCTION 


Epistles.  2.  The  Q  material.  3.  The  Special  Source  of  Luke. 
Each  of  these  is  independent  of  Mark,  and  each  affords  some 
ground  for  an  estimate  of  the  accuracy  of  Mark's  represen- 
tation. 

As  respects  the  Pauline  Epistles  the  most  serious  point 
of  difference  affects  the  story  of  the  resurrection.  Here, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  a  new  line  altogether  has  been 
struck  forth  by  R,  diverging  entirely  from  the  Pauline,  and 
making  its  point  of  departure  the  story  of  the  women  at  the 
empty  sepulcher.  But  R  has  not  wholly  obliterated  the 
traces  of  the  earlier  Petrine  story.  With  the  help  of  the 
Special  Source  of  Luke  it  is  recoverable  in  outline.  Faith 
in  Jesus  as  the  glorified  Christ  began  with  an  appearance  to 
Peter  in  Galilee.  From  this  the  next  step  was  Peter's  rally- 
ing of  his  brethren  there,  followed  by  an  appearance  in 
Galilee  to  the  Twelve,  and  the  return  (at  Pentecost?)  of  the 
body  of  believers  to  Jerusalem. 

From  Paul's  Epistles  we  may  also  draw  some  confirma- 
tion of  the  Johannine  date  for  the  crucifixion,  restoring  the 
Quartodeciman  form  of  the  older  record  in  c.  14  from  the 
occidental  reconstruction  of  R.  For  the  rest  the  Epistles 
serve  mainly  to  acquaint  us  with  the  practical  problems  of 
church  life  and  doctrine  which  account  for  the  form  in  which 
the  story  is  delivered.  One  striking  difference  however  re- 
mains to  be  noted,  whose  bearing  is  upon  the  narrative  of 
the  ministry.  Nowhere,  in  any  writing  which  has  survived 
to  us,  does  Paul  make  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  miracle 
or  healing  wrought  by  Jesus.  Nowhere  does  he  make  any 
allusion  to  the  work  of  healing  as  belonging  to  Jesus'  com- 
mission, unless  the  phrase  "the  signs  of  an  apostle"  be 
taken  to  mean  the  tokens  connected  by  Jesus  with  apostle- 
ship.  Exorcism  he  does  not  even  refer  to  in  any  way  what- 
ever. Considering  that  Mark's  demonstration  of  Jesus' 
divine  sonship  is  mainly  based  upon  the  mighty  works, 
among  which  the  chief  place  is  given  to  Jesus'  power  over 
the  demons  and  Beelzebub  their  prince,  considering  that  the 
communication  of  this  miraculous  power  to  his  disciples 
forms  the  principal  element  in  their  preparation,  the  con- 
trast seems  significant.  It  becomes  much  more  so  when  we 
note :  1 .  That  the  Ephesian  Gospel  has  wholly  transformed 
the  character  of  Jesus'  mighty  works,  leaving  as  little  trace 
as  in  Paul  of  the  distinctive  Markan  work  of  exorcism.  2. 
That  the  Q  material,  while  it  alludes  to  Jesus'  mighty  works 
of  healing,  makes  no  parade  of  them,  but  on  the  contrary 
reports  sayings  of  Jesus  which  would  make  it  psychologically 


INTRODUCTION 


inconceivable  for  him  to  assume  the  attitude  represented  in 
Mark  on  this  matter  of  wonder-working. 

11.  Miracles  and  Exorcism  in  Mark  vs.  Paul  and   Q 

The  Q  material  is  specially  valuable  for  just  that  por- 
tion of  the  ministry  which  the  Pauline  Epistles  scarcely 
refer  to,  the  period  of  teaching  and  healing  in  Galilee.  It 
is  to  this  period  and  vicinity  that  Mark  assigns  practically 
all  the  wonders  of  Jesus.  We  have  just  seen  that  the  say- 
ings of  Q  make  allusion,  e.g.,  in  the  charge  He  casteth  out 
by  Beelzebub,  the  Message  to  John,  or  the  Denunciation  of 
the  Unrepentant  Cities,  to  Jesus'  works  of  healing  as  a  dis- 
tinctive though  not  a  separable  part  of  his  mission.  The 
vital  point  of  difference  from  Mark  is  that  the  mighty  works 
are  devoutly  referred  to  "the  finger  of  God,"  as  accompani- 
ments of  Jesus'  message,  through  which  God  sets  upon  it 
the  seal  of  his  approval.  Hence  evidences  of  penitent  love 
and  of  moral  transformation,  as  in  the  cases  of  the  penitent 
harlot  and  the  repentance  of  publicans  and  sinners  at  the 
preaching  of  John,  are  coordinated  with  the  healings  in  the 
very  same  breath.1  Jesus  sees  evidences  of  the  working  of 
God  in  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  whether  "gifts  of  healing,"  or 
gifts  of  the  spirit  of  "faith,  hope  and  love,"  just  as  Paul 
does.  In  particular  it  is  regarded  as  presumptuous  to  call 
for  a  sign  from  heaven,  instead  of  learning  from  the  signs 
God  has  already  vouchsafed,  were  men  only  willing  to  read 
them.  Even  Jesus  himself  is  not  at  liberty  to  "tempt 
God,"  by  attempting  miraculous  provision  of  food  in  the 
desert,  or  angelic  aid  to  triumph  over  physical  danger.  To 
presume  upon  the  divine  aid  by  such  attempts  to  forestall 
God's  intention  is  represented  as  a  suggestion  of  Satan. 

In  Mark  contrariwise  the  agency  is  conceived  as  originally 
resident  in  Jesus  himself.  To  blaspheme  him  is  to  blas- 
pheme the  Spirit  of  God.  What  he  does  is  the  doing  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  just  as  what  the  demoniac  does  is  the  doing 
of  the  unclean  spirit.  There  is  no  longer  room  for  the 
distinctions  so  clearly  drawn  in  Q,  which  are  therefore  one 
and  all  omitted  or  transformed.  Jesus  proves  himself  a 
superhuman  being,  greater  even  than  the  angels,2  an  object 
of  terror  to  the  demons,  by  sheer  thaumaturgy.3  We  may 
surely  conclude  from  such  a  contrast  of  Paul  and  the  Q 
material  on  one  side,  with  the  Markan  prodigies  on  the 

1  Mt.  11:  5  =  Lk.  7:  22;  Mt.  21:  32;  Lk.  7:  42. 
2 13:  32.  3  6:44,48-52,56. 


INTRODUCTION 


other,  that  the  distinctively  thaumaturgic  traits  which  have 
characterized  the  evangelic  tradition  from  the  time  that 
Mark  formulated  its  accepted  outline,  are  largely  due  to 
this  particular  evangelist.  This  becomes  the  more  probable 
from  the  fact  that  the  material  most  closely  connected  with 
the  primitive  P  tradition,  while  it  has  indeed  much  to  tell 
of  wonders  of  healing,  inclines  rather  to  Q  than  to  Mark  in 
its  view  of  the  agency.  In  the  special  group1  devoted  to  this 
subject,  the  lesson  constantly  reiterated  is  that  of  faith  in 
God.  The  resources  of  infinite  power  and  love  only  await 
the  moment  of  filial  trust  on  the  part  of  the  suppliant. 
This  lesson  is  scarcely  in  line  with  R's  explanations  of  the 
healing  agency.2  In  view  of  the  special  thaumaturgic  in- 
terest of  R,  which  groups  him  with  such  writers  as  the 
author  of  the  Travel-document  in  Acts,  and  the  Corinthian 
believers  whose  fondness  for  the  more  spectacular  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  is  rebuked  by  Paul,  we  may  reasonably  discount 
much  from  the  element  of  the  marvelous  in  this  Gospel. 

12.  The  Sociological  Environment  in  Mark  vs.  Luke 

Finally  we  are  profoundly  indebted  to  our  third  evangelist 
for  the  preservation  of  a  source  combining  both  narrative 
and  discourse,  the  so-called  Special  Source  of  Luke,  which 
comes  more  distinctly  to  the  fore  in  the  story  of  the  Judaean 
ministry,  even  supplanting  Mark  almost  entirely  in  the 
story  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection.  Either  the  source 
itself,  or  Luke  in  his  development  of  it,  has  taken  large 
liberties  in  the  way  of  edifying  elaboration,  as,  e.g.,  in  the 
story  of  the  repentant  thief.  Nevertheless  in  sum  total 
one  very  distinctive  element  is  contributed  by  this  source, 
an  element  so  marked  as  to  give  to  Luke  its  preeminent 
characteristic.  We  may  designate  this  trait  the  humani- 
tarian, or  sociological,  characterization  of  Jesus'  work. 

It  is  true  that  Q  affords  us  the  most  invaluable  clew  to 
the  real  character  of  Jesus'  work,  historically  considered. 
It  is  that  of  an  epithet  coined  by  his  enemies.  He  was  "the 
friend  of  the  publicans  and  sinners."  Occasional  gleams 
of  this  humanitarian  motive  appear  also  in  Mark,  as  where 
the  four  fishermen  are  invited  to  join  in  a  work  of  fishing 
for  men,  which  a  comparison  of  Jer.  16:  16  and  Mt.  13:  47 
reveals  to  be  a  movement  for  gathering  the  scattered  mem- 
bers of  Israel.  So  the  saying,  "I  came  not  to  call  the  right- 
eous but  sinners,"3  and  the  glance  of  compassion  over  the 

1 4:  35—5:  43.  2  5:  30;  6:  56.  s  2:  17. 


INTRODUCTION 


scattered,  shepherdless  multitude1  are  suggestive.  But  how 
little  should  we  have  from  Mark  alone  to  explain  the  popu- 
lar support  which  gave  to  the  movement  of  Jesus  its  mes- 
sianist  character,  and  afterward  recruited  to  the  standard 
of  the  crucified  Nazarene  a  great  following  from  the  "people 
of  the  land,"  were  it  not  for  the  Special  Source  of  Luke, 
with  its  constant  depiction  of  Jesus  as  the  champion  of  the 
"little  ones,"  the  unrecognized  "sons"  or  "daughters  of 
Abraham,"  the  spiritually  disinherited  masses,  publicans, 
women,  Samaritans,  outcasts  from  the  synagogue,  scat- 
tered sheep,  lost  sons? 

In  the  historico-critical  discussion  of  the  real  significance 
of  Jesus'  journey  to  Jerusalem  with  which  Part  Second  has 
been  prefaced  in  the  present  volume  the  attempt  has  been 
made  to  show  that  herein  lies  the  real  key  to  Jesus'  whole 
career,  historically  speaking.  That  which  the  historical 
conditions  supplied  to  call  him  forth  and  make  of  him  the 
martyr  of  the  "lost  sons"  in  the  cause  of  the  promised  king- 
dom was  the  tension  created  by  the  development  of  legalism 
in  the  narrow  cliques  of  scribes  and  Pharisees,  the  chaberim 
of  Synagogue  orthodoxy,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  lam  ha- 
aretz,  the  masses  of  the  people,  on  the  other.  The  revival 
of  the  old  prophetic  type  of  religion  spiritual  and  ethical 
under  John  the  Baptist,  marked  a  new  epoch  because  of 
these  conditions.  But  it  was  abruptly  broken  off  by  the 
prophet's  imprisonment.  Jesus'  career  was  its  fulfillment 
and  transfiguration.  To  complete  the  picture  we  need  the 
Q  description  of  Jesus'  new  yoke.  Mark  is  one-sided  in  its 
omission  of  that  description  of  the  higher  righteousness  of 
the  "sons"  who  are  such  by  imitation  of  the  Father's  good- 
ness, as  against  the  traditional,  prescribed  righteousness  of 
scribes  and  Pharisees.  We  need  even  more  the  Special 
Source  of  Luke,  with  its  humanitarian  view  of  Jesus;  his 
championship  of  the  cause  of  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel,  his  yearning  "to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost." 

It  was  perhaps  unavoidable  that  a  Gentile  Gospel  should 
largely  lose  sight  of  these  historical  conditions,  which  yet 
furnish  the  real  key  to  Jesus'  sense  of  his  mission.  In  the 
Ephesian  Gospel  there  is  not  a  trace  left  of  this  distinctive 
feature  of  the  Baptist's  ministry,  not  so  much  as  one  men- 
tion throughout  that  Gospel  of  the  class  of  "publicans  and 
sinners."  The  case  is  not  so  bad  with  this  Roman  Gospel 
of  Mark.  And  yet  how  vitally  needful  the  supplement  we 
are  enabled  to  make  from  the  pages  of  Luke ! 

J6:  34. 


INTRODUCTION 


13.   Mark  and  Luke  vs.  Q  on  Jesus  as  the  Apocalyptic 
Son  of  Man 

Convergent  lines  from  these  three  independent  sources, 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Q  material,  and  the  Special  Source 
of  Luke  enable  us  to  frame  a  reasonable  discrimination 
between  the  picture  as  R  conceives  it,  and  that  which  his 
material  would  suggest  to  the  unbiased  historian.  In 
many  respects  its  traits  are  coincident  with  that  which 
would  result  from  a  purely  literary  analysis  of  the  Gospel 
into  its  elements  of  Petrine  tradition  and  editorial  adapta- 
tion. On  the  fundamental  question  whether  Jesus'  con- 
ception of  his  mission  was  purely  religio-ethical  and  humani- 
tarian, or  apocalyptic,  literary  analysis  tends  to  confirm 
the  impression  we  should  obtain  from  the  weighing  of  Mark 
and  the  Special  Source  of  Luke  against  Q.  The  title  Son 
of  man  does  not  appear  to  characterize  the  fundamental 
elements  of  Mark  (P).  It  occurs  in  editorial  supplements 
derived  from  Q,  and  even  then  in  an  adapted  sense  (see 
notes).  As  we  have  endeavored  to  show  in  the  Introduc- 
tion to  Part  Second,  the  apocalyptic  conception  of  Jesus  as 
the  Son  of  man  destined  to  return  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven 
seems  to  be  editorially  superimposed  upon  the  old  Petrine 
tradition,  leaving  as  the  historical  significance  attached  by 
Jesus  himself  to  his  mission  the  purely  religio-ethical  and 
humanitarian.  He  came  as  the  champion  of  the  "  lost  sons," 
to  vindicate  their  claim  to  the  spiritual  inheritance  of  Israel. 
The  task  which  beckoned  him  to  his  fate  was  the  abolition 
of  man-made  barriers  between  the  fainting  human  heart 
and  the  yearning  love  of  the  Father  in  heaven. 

14.   The  Resultant  Story  of  Jesus 

From  the  analysis  of  our  "oldest  gospel"  and  comparison 
with  all  other  known  sources  we  come  back  to  a  conception 
of  the  historic  Jesus  which  both  accords  with  the  simplicity 
of  the  known  conditions  of  his  environment,  and  also  leaves 
room  for  the  historic  development  which  ensued.  The  out- 
line coincides  with  that  ancient  synopsis  reported  in  Peter's 
speech  to  the  centurion  of  Csesarea.1 

Jesus  was  a  wage-earner  of  Nazareth,  an  ideal  representa- 
tive of  that  simple  piety  exemplified  in  the  earlier  type  of 
Pharisaism,  unspoiled  as  yet  by  the  ecclesiasticism  of  the 
Synagogue  system.     Pharisaism  of  this  sort,  imbued  with 

1  Acts  10:  36-39. 


INTRODUCTION 


the  spirit  of  the  prophetic  scriptures,  rich  with  the  blood  of 
thousands  of  martyrs  who  perished  for  their  pietistic  prin- 
ciples under  Alexander  Jannaeus  (104-78  B.C.)  shines  from 
the  pages  of  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (ca. 
100  B.C.),  from  those  of  the  Psalter  of  Solomon  (ca.  50  B.C.) 
and  even  from  the  opening  chapters  of  Jubilees  (ca.  10  a.d.). 
The  ever  more  burdensome  yoke  imposed  by  scribal  casu- 
istry, the  development  of  the  Synagogue  system  already 
verging  toward  rabbinic  legalism,  was  rapidly  excluding 
the  masses  from  all  "share  in  the  world  to  come."  One  of 
the  many  reactions,  the  greatest  certainly  from  its  historical 
outcome,  was  the  movement  of  the  Baptist,  in  which  Jesus 
saw  no  less  than  the  promised  Great  Repentance  of  Elijah, 
and  Restoration  of  the  Tribes,  which  according  to  prophecy 
would  precede  the  great  Day  of  the  Son  of  man.  In  com- 
pany with  multitudes  of  the  outcasts  from  the  Synagogue, 
Jesus  submitted  to  baptism,  a  new  rite,  foreign  to  the  law, 
but  naturally  symbolical  of  the  simple  means  whereby  these 
"publicans  and  sinners"  sought  access  to  God,  the  old 
prophetic  road  of  repentance  and  humane  living.  His 
public  career  began  as  a  consequence  of  the  violent  inter- 
ruption of  the  work  of  John.  It  was  a  work  of  gathering 
the  scattered  flock,  but  did  not  content  itself  with  a  mere 
echoing  in  the  desert  the  summons  to  repentance  uttered 
by  the  Baptist,  but  went  to  seek  out  the  lost  sons  and 
daughters  of  Abraham  where  the  "unchurched"  masses 
were  densest,  on  the  Gennesaret  plain.  Moreover,  as  the 
Teaching  Source  plainly  informs  us,  Jesus  improved  upon 
the  message  of  repentance  by  drawing  its  logical  conse- 
quence. If  God  was  summoning  sinners  to  repentance 
and  to  the  life  of  brotherly  love,  and  they  obeyed  the  sum- 
mons, then  the  fruits  of  the  mission  (Wisdom's  children) 
were  themselves  an  assurance  of  His  forgiveness.  It  was  a 
gospel  of  glad  tidings  for  the  poor,  an  easy  yoke  in  place  of 
the  grievous  burdens  of  the  scribes,  rest  for  weary  souls — 
and  yet  withal  a  higher  righteousness  than  Pharisaic  mo- 
rality. 

And  God  worked  with  him.  Not  only  the  poor  had  glad 
tidings  preached  to  them,  but  He  that  forgave  their  in- 
iquities healed  also  all  their  diseases.  "Demons"  aban- 
doned their  control  of  the  weak-minded  and  hysterical  where 
Jesus  came.  The  sick  who  touched  his  hand  or  even  his 
garment  were  restored  to  health.  Paralytics  sprang  to 
their  feet.  So  he  went  about  through  all  Galilee,  proclaim- 
ing the  glad  tidings  of  the  kingdom,   "doing  good,   and 


xl  INTRODUCTION 


healing  all  those  that  were  oppressed  of  the  Devil,  for  God 
was  with  him." 

We  have  no  need  to  rehearse  the  story  of  his  collision  with 
the  Synagogue  authorities,  inevitable  from  the  first,  re- 
corded in  all  our  authorities.  Whether  the  scribes  or  Herod 
were  mainly  instrumental  in  the  matter,  the  outcome  was 
the  same.  Jesus  was  driven  out  from  Galilee.  In  the 
Introduction  to  Part  Second  we  have  endeavored  to  point 
out  the  consequences  of  this  new  development  of  the  con- 
flict, its  inevitable  transference  to  the  broader,  more  perilous 
stage  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple.  Just  as  his  opponents 
now  are  no  longer  merely  the  magnates  of  the  Galilean 
synagogues,  but  the  Maccabean  hierocracy  in  their  temple 
stronghold,  so  Jesus  himself  becomes  something  more  than 
the  preacher  and  healer.  Champion  of  the  "lost  sons"  he 
cannot  and  will  not  cease  to  be.  Against  the  hierocracy  in 
Jerusalem  such  championship,  in  spite  of  Jesus'  best  en- 
deavors against  misinterpretation,  could  not  fail  to  undergo 
suffusion  with  the  glamour  of  messianism.  Even  if  his 
friends  resisted  the  temptation,  his  enemies  would  be  sure 
to  impute  this  ambition  to  him.  Critics  are  divided  as  to 
how  Jesus  met  this  contingency;  whether  he  altogether  re- 
pudiated the  title  of  "the  Christ,"  or  accepted  it  in  a  trans- 
figured sense.  Either  alternative  could  make  little  difference 
with  the  event.  In  the  temple  he  boldly  challenged  the  abuses 
of  Sadducean  control,  declaring  that  he  acted  by  the  same 
authority  as  the  Baptist,  and  in  the  interest  of  those  who  had 
been  the  Baptist's  followers.  A  brief  triumph  of  popular  sup- 
port was  followed  by  a  fate  like  that  which  the  Baptist  had 
suffered  for  like  reasons;  only  more  cruel,  and  inflicted  openly 
by  the  Roman  governor  at  the  instigation  of  the  priests. 

Such  is  the  story  of  Jesus'  outward  career,  as  the  historian 
might  restore  it  from  analysis  and  comparison  of  the  earliest 
records.  Side  by  side  with  it  the  religious  mind  will  read 
its  inner  significance  for  the  spiritual  development  of  hu- 
manity. That  unseen  record,  which  only  begins  with  the 
rekindling  and  transfiguration  of  the  messianic  hope  in  the 
career  and  teaching  of  the  Carpenter  of  Nazareth,  is  con- 
tinued in  the  story  of  the  Church.  With  Peter's  vision  in 
Galilee  of  the  risen  Lord  begins  unconsciously  the  founda- 
tion of  a  new  and  universal  religion,  whose  principles  are 
the  sonship  and  the  brotherhood  of  humanity.  This  inner 
history  of  the  working  of  God  in  Christ  it  is  not  our  present 
task  to  trace.  It  belongs  to  the  story  of  the  life  of  God  in 
man,  the  eternal  life  of  the  Spirit  of  Jesus. 


INTRODUCTION  xli 


In  the  ensuing  pages  the  subdivisions  of  the  composition 
have  been  treated  first  critically,  then  exegetically.  A  few 
words  only  of  explanation  are  needed  for  some  of  the  de- 
vices for  condensation  in  the  latter  treatment. 

The  text  printed  is  that  of  the  revised  version  (R.  V.)  of 
1881,  with  the  single  difference  that  supplied  words  are 
inclosed  in  parentheses  (  )  instead  of  being  printed  in  italic. 
Brackets  [  \\  are  used  to  enclose  material  not  found  in  all 
ancient  authorities. 

Significant  or  admissible  variations  of  reading  in  the 
manuscripts  have  been  printed  immediately  under  the  text 
with  the  prefixed  abbreviation  "var."  Such  as  have  no 
real  probability  of  representing  the  original  are  usually 
omitted.  When  they  have  a  bearing  on  the  history  of 
transmission  they  are  discussed  in  the  notes.  Variant 
renderings  also  are  introduced  immediately  under  the  text, 
prefaced  by  a  simple  "or"  as  in  the  R.  V.  margin.  More 
literal  renderings  are  indicated  by  "Gr.,"  i.e.,  Greek. 

The  margin  is  used  for  parallels  and  quoted  matter. 
Display  type  is  used  for  the  ordinary  case  of  Synoptic  par- 
allelism wherein  Matthew  and  Luke  transcribe  from  Mark. 
In  all  other  cases,  ordinary  type  is  used.  The  letters  R,  P, 
Q,  X,  are  employed  to  indicate  the  supposed  derivation  of 
the  material,  spaces  in  the  text  indicating  the  points  of  divi- 
sion. Passages  employed  only  indirectly  or  in  a  modified 
form  are  inclosed  in  (  ).  Thus  R  (Q)  means  work  of  the 
editor  on  the  basis  of  Q.  The  particular  passage  of  Q  sup- 
posedly employed,  will  also  in  such  a  case  be  given  in  the 
margin  in  (  ),  e.g.,  (Mt.  ll:2-19  =  Lk.  7:  18-35).  Where 
the  material  seems  not  to  be  merely  editorial  yet  the  source 
cannot  be  identified  the  symbol  X  is  employed,  as  in  9:  2-10 
=  R(X). 

The  Septuagint  version  or  Greek  Old  Testament,  the 
Bible  of  the  New  Testament  writers  generally,  is  designated 
Gr.  version;  in  most  cases  the  margin  of  the  R.  V.  shows 
the  important  variants. 

References  to  chapter  and  verse  in  Mark  are  usually 
printed  without  preceding  "Mk."  Where  an  entire  chapter 
is  included  the  abbreviation  c.  is  used.  One  or  more  verses 
following  in  the  context  of  a  passage  cited  are  indicated  by 
f.,  ff.,  e.g.,  3:  If.;  4:  6ff.  Other  abbreviations  or  symbols  are 
in  common  use.  or  self-evident  in  meaning. 


PART  I 
THE   GALILEAN  MINISTRY 


PART  I 
DIVISION  I.     1:1—3:6 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 
STRUCTURE 

This  Division  of  the  Gospel  consists  of  three  parts:  (a)  a 
Title  and  Prologue  to  the  Gospel,1  including  the  story  of 
Jesus'  Baptism  and  Vocation;  (b)  an  account  of  the  Begin- 
ning of  his  Ministry2 ;  (c)  an  account  of  the  Growth  of  Oppo- 
sition.3 

The  ancient  Petrine  tradition,  designated  in  our  com- 
mentary by  the  marginal  letter  P,  whose  outline  is  sketched 
in  Acts  10:37,  38,  "began  from  Galilee  after  the  baptism 
which  John  preached  "  relating  how  "  God  anointed  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power:  who  went 
about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the 
devil;  for  God  was  with  him."  Subdivisions  b  and  c  corre- 
spond with  this  outline,  and  in  their  scenic  background — 
Capernaum,  the  synagogue,  Peter's  house,  the  lake-shore — ■ 
corroborate  the  ancient  tradition  which  makes  Peter  the 
original  narrator. 

This  primitive  nucleus,  however,  shows  traces  of  supple- 
mentation and  adaptation  to  certain  general  viewpoints 
of  the  work,  even  in  Subdivision  b  which  narrates  the  great 
first  sabbath  in  Capernaum.  Appended  to  it  is  an  incident4 
of  later  occurrence,  unknown  scene,  and  indeterminable 
derivation  (indicated  by  marginal  X),  placed  here  seemingly 
to  heighten  the  effect  of  the  related  beginning  of  miracles, 
and  setting  Jesus'  reserve  in  still  sharper,  even  exaggerated 
contrast5  with  the  spread  of  his  fame.  Similarly  ver.  24 
places  in  the  mouth  of  the  "demon"  who  cried  out  in  the 
synagogue  the  evangelist's  own  theoretical  idea  expressed 
in  ver.  34  and  3:  11,  that  the  demons  invariably  recognized 
Jesus  as  the  Christ.  We  may  therefore  safely  attribute 
to  the  compiler  or  redactor  (R)  the  terms  of  this  outcry  so 
singularly  identical  with  that  of  the  demoniac  of  Gerasa.8 

In  Subdivision  c  the  process  of  supplementation  and  ex- 
pansion has  gone  farther.     Two  incidents  unconnected  with 


1 1:1-13.       21:14-45.       82:  1—  3:  0.         *1:  40-45.         «Ver.  45.  "5:7. 

3 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


the  rest  as  to  time  or  locality  are  attached  at  the  close.1 
These  carry  onward  the  theme  of  the  Growth  of  Opposition 
to  its  final  culmination  in  the  plots  against  Jesus'  life,  quite 
in  advance  of  the  course  of  the  story.  They  also  take  us 
away  from  the  scenes  by  the  lake-shore  at  Capernaum  which 
are  resumed  in  3 :  7ff .  Both  are  placed  in  later  connection 
by  Matthew;  one2  was  related  in  the  Ev.  Hebr.,3  and  has 
points  of  affinity  with  the  Sabbath  conflict  related  in  Lk. 
14:  1-6. 

Besides  these  supplementary  paragraphs  Subdivision  c 
shows  traces  of  expansion.  These  also  take  the  line  of 
heightening  the  Growth  of  Opposition;  but  here  the  inter- 
polator (R)  seems  to  depend  on  the  great  non-Markan 
source  of  Matthew-Luke  (Q),  especially  in  its  Lukan  form 

(QLK). 

What  is  the  substance  of  this  section  of  QLK?  The 
equivalent  paragraph4  is  chiefly  concerned  with  the  stum- 
bling of  the  Jews  at  the  mighty  works  and  gracious  teaching 
of  Christ.  Apropos  of  a  question  of  "John's  disciples" 
Jesus  points  to  the  "cleansing  of  lepers,"  "healing  of  the 
sick,"  and  "preaching  glad  tidings  to  the  poor";  thereafter 
he  denounces  the  generation  which  would  none  of  the 
Baptist  because  of  his  ascetic  life,  while  it  rejected  Jesus 
for  consorting  with  "publicans  and  sinners,"  and  for  dis- 
regarding set  "fasts."  Finally  (in  Luke)  Jesus  vindicates 
his  "right  to  proclaim  forgiveness"  to  penitent  "sinners" 
on  the  ground  that  their  manifestations  of  love  and  grati- 
tude are  themselves  a  proof  of  God's  benignant  attitude 
toward  them. 

Beginning  already  with  the  intercalated  incident  of  the 
Leper  in  Subdivision  b,5  we  have  a  series  of  supplements  to 
the  Petrine  tradition  in  Subdivision  c,  which  corresponds  to 
the  Q  context.  These  supplements  set  forth  how  the  syna- 
gogue authorities  were  "stumbled  in  him"  by  his  claim  of 
"authority  to  declare  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"6  his  "eating 
and  drinking  with  publicans  and  sinners,"7  his  "neglect  of 
the  fasts"  in  contrast  with  "John's  disciples."8  Now  at 
least  in  2:  5-10,  where  Jesus  bases  his  "authority  to  forgive 
sins  "  on  his  superhuman  character  as  the  Son  of  man  of 
Dan.  7:  13,9  and  measurably  in  vers.  20-22,  which  justify  the 
altered  rites  of  the  early  Church,  we  are  carried  far  beyond 

»2:  23-28  and  3:  1-6.  23:  1-6. 

3  See  comment  ibid.  Uncanonical  post-biblical  writings  are  generally  referred 
to  by  their  Latin  titles,  e.g.,  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews^Ev.  Hebr.;  The 
Gospel  ace.  to  Peter  =Ev.  Petri,  etc. 

4Lk.  7:  19-50  =Mt.  11:  1-19.  51:  40-45.  »2:  5-10.  7  2:  6-17. 

8  2:  18-22.  *So  again  in  ver.  28. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


the  historical  situation  and  the  real  progress  of  the  story. 
Moreover  Luke's  story  of  the  Penitent  Harlot,1  which  bases 
the  right  to  declare  the  forgiveness  of  sins  on  grounds  akin 
to  Jesus'  reference  to  the  Great  Repentance  at  the  preaching 
of  the  Baptist,2  is  certainly  earlier  and  more  authentic  than 
Mk.  2:  5-10,  which  does  not  even  suggest  the  idea  of  re- 
pentance, and  cannot  be  reconciled  to  the  context.  These 
traits  are  therefore  most  reasonably  accounted  for  as  ex- 
pansions made  by  R  on  the  basis  of  QLK. 

Lastly  (a)  the  Prologue  is  made  up  entirely  of  materials 
adapted  by  R  from  Q.  First  this  same  QLK  section  is 
employed,  which  set  forth  John  the  Baptist  as  the  Messenger 
of  the  Covenant  sent  "to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,"  as 
"Elias  that  was  for  to  come,"  as  baptizing  "in  the  wilder- 
ness," as  an  ascetic  in  garb  and  diet.  Then  we  have  a 
meager  extract  from  the  Q  account  of  his  preaching3  and 
an  equally  meager  reflection  of  the  Q  story  of  the  Tempta- 
tion.4 Even  the  Baptism,5  while  it  translates  into  narrative 
prose  the  figurative  expression  "God  anointed  him  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  power,"  and  doubtless  stands  for  a  real 
acceptance  by  Jesus  of  the  rite  at  John's  hands,  is  no  part 
of  the  primitive  P  tradition,  and  borrows  its  description 
and  heavenly  proclamation  from  Is.  42:  1  and  the  Vision  of 
Transfiguration.6  The  whole  Prologue  stands  at  an  indefi- 
nite remove  from  the  succeeding  story,  with  no  intimation 
of  its  derivation,  forming  a  preliminary  explanation  to  the 
reader  from  R's  point  of  view  of  the  significance  of  the 
opening  drama. 


»Lk.  7:  40-47.       2Mt.  21:  31,32=Lk.  7:  29,30.         3Mt.  3:  7-12-=Lk  3-  7-17. 
*Mt.  4:  l-ll=Lk.  4:  1-13.  6 1:9-11.  89:  7;  cf.  Mt.  12:  18. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


THE    PROLOGUE 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  a.  1 :  1-13.  Before  the  period  of  Jesus'  associ- 
ation with  his  earliest  disciples  in  the  work  of  proclaiming 
the  Kingdom  he  had  undergone  an  experience  which  called 
him  to  the  dignity  of  the  Beloved,  the  Son  of  God,  qualified 
him  for  the  Son's  appointed  career,  and  subjected  him  to  a  test 
of  spiritual  endurance. 

Vers.  2-6.  As  had  been  predicted  by  the  prophets  in  prepara- 
tion for  the  coming  of  Christ,  a  movement  to  repentance  was  in- 
augurated among  the  people  by  one  named  John,  whose  appear- 
ance and  mode  of  life  recalled  the  prophet  Elijah. 

Vers.  7,  8.  John  predicted  a  successor  far  greater  than  him- 
self and  prophesied  that  his  own  baptism  of  water  would  be 
transcended  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  this  Greater  One 
would  supply. 

Vers.  9-11.  As  Jesus  among  the  multitude  was  submitting 
to  John's  rite  of  baptism  he  experienced  a  divine  adoption. 
The  Spirit  of  God  descended  into  him  and  a  Voice  from  heaven 
proclaimed,  Thou  art  my  Son,  the  Beloved.  My  eternal  de- 
cree was  fixed  upon  thee. 

Vers.  12,  13.  Impelled  by  this  Spirit  from  God  Jesus  now 
fled  to  the  wilderness,  enduring  there  assaults  by  Satan;  but 
even  the  wild  beasts  stood  in  awe  of  him,  while  angels  minis- 
tered to  his  needs. 


SUBDIVISION  A.    Vers.  2-13— CRITICISM 

Before  beginning  the  Petrine  story  outlined  in  Acts  10:  37  R  intro- 
duces in  brief  abstract  a  few  data  to  enlighten  the  reader  regarding 
the  part  to  be  played  by  the  two  principal  personages  of  his  drama. 
In  R's  view  the  movement  of  the  Baptist  was  wholly  preparatory  to 
the  messianic  (Christian)  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.1  John  was  the 
"Elias  that  was  for  to  come"2  to  effect  the  Great  Repentance.  Jesus, 
though  he  came  after  John,3  and  was  among  those  baptized  by  him, 
was  immeasurably  greater.  He  was  called  by  a  Voice  from  heaven  to 
be  the  Beloved,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Elect  of  God's  good  pleasure; 
and  this  Vocation  was  corroborated  by  a  Test,  wherein  Satan  with  all 
his  powers  proved  inferior  to  the  Spirit  which  had  come  upon  Jesus. 
This  prologue  rests  not  upon  information  conveyed  to  the  evangelist 
by  the  Baptist  or  Jesus,  but  has  a  demonstrable  literary  basis,  the 
factors  of  which  are:  (a)  Sayings  of  Jesus,  (6)  earlier  evangelic  writings, 
(c)  Old  Testament  scripture. 

iVer.  8.  2  Mai.  4:6.  8Ver.  7. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


(a)  The  Q  source  afforded  sayings  of  Jesus  about  the  Baptist  as 
(1)  the  Messenger  of  the  Covenant1;  (2)  as  baptizing  "in  the  wilder- 
ness," where  the  crowds  "went  out"  to  him,  confessing  their  sins; 
(3)  as  not  "clothed  in  soft  raiment,"  but  like  a  prophet  in  a  hairy  man- 
tle,2 or  like  another  Elijah,  who,  according  toll  Kings  1:  8  (R.V.  m.), 
was  "a  man  with  a  garment  of  hair  and  girt  with  a  girdle  of  leather 
about  his  loins";  (4)  as  "neither  eating  bread  nor  drinking  wine," 
but  subsisting  on  wilderness  fare;  (5)  as  baptizing  "with  water," 
whereas  the  disciples  should  be  "baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
These  primitive  sayings  are  still  to  be  found  in  Q,  the  common  ma- 
terial of  Matthew  and  Luke,3  or  else  in  single  attestation.4 

(6)  We  have  three  proofs  that  the  prologue  is  based  on  earlier  evan- 
gelical writings:  (1)  The  original  application  of  the  Baptist's  saying 
about  the  Mightier  One  to  come  after  him  is  only  traceable  in  the 
Q  context5  where  it  is  seen  to  refer  to  the  Angel  of  Judgment,6  for 
whose  baptism  of  "fire"  John's  baptism  of  water  is  a  mere  preparation 
and  warning.  The  later  application  made  of  it  by  Mark  to  Jesus  and 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  introduced  thence  into  our  Matthew  and 
Luke,  but  is  still  foreign  to  Q.  (2)  The  Voice  from  heaven7  is  taken 
verbatim  from  "the  vision"  of  the  disciples  on  the  Mount  of  Trans- 
figuration, a  narrative  which  interprets  the  doctrine  of  a  suffering  and 
glorified  Messiah  in  Pauline  language,  and  is  appended  in  Mk.  9:  2-10 
with  such  flagrant  interruption  of  the  context  as  to  prove  its  foreign 
derivation  (see  comment  ibid.).  Also  (3)  the  references  in  ver.  13  to 
temptations  of  Satan,  "wild  beasts,"  and  ministration  of  angels  are  so 
blind  as  to  be  unintelligible  without  the  context  of  Q8  and  of  Ps. 
91:  11-13,  on  which  the  Q  narrative  is  based.  These  three  indications 
show  the  secondary  character  of  the  prologue  material.  The  proof 
that  Mark  is  here  using  the  written  Greek  evangelic  source  employed 
by  Matthew  and  Luke  is  conclusive;  for  in  ver.  2  he  quotes  Mai.  3:  1 
in  the  exact  words  of  Q  and  not  of  the  Septuagint,  on  which  he  in- 
variably depends  for  his  own  use,  and  blunderingly  attributes  this 
prophecy  also  to  "Isaiah"  from  whom  he  takes  ver.  3.  Moreover, 
the  rare  form  of  the  word  for  "eating"9  is  not  that  elsewhere  used 
by  Mark,  nor  does  it  even  occur  in  the  New  Testament  save  only  in 
the  passage  Lk.  7 :  33,  34  and  two  other  Q  extracts  of  Luke. 

(c)  The  use  of  Hos.  1:  2  (?),10  Is.  40:  3,11  II  Kings  1:  8,  Lev.  11:  22  (?), 
Dt.  32:  13  (?),12  Is.  64:  1  (?),13  and  Ps.  91:  13H  shows  our  evangelist  as 
well  able  to  supplement  from  the  Greek  Old  Testament  as  his  prede- 
cessors.15 

For  the  doctrinal  conception  and  aim  wherein  the  evangelist  has 
pragmatically  put  together  these  data,  omitting  all  save  what  con- 
tributed to  his  picture  of  the  external  situation,  we  should  compare 
the  Dialogue  of  Justin  Martyr  against  the  Jew  Trypho  (ca.  155  a.d.), 
cc.  viii  and  xlix,  where  the  objection  that  Jesus  cannot  be  the  Christ 
because  Elias  is  not  yet  come18  is  met  by  referring  to  the  appearance 
of  the  Baptist  and  his  "anointing"  of  Jesus. 


1  Mai.  3:1.  2Zech.  13:4. 

'Mt.  ll:10=Lk.  7:  27;  Mt.  ll:7=Lk.  7:24;  Mt.  21:   31,32=Lk.  7:  29,30;  Mt. 
ll:8=Lk.  7:25;  Mt.  11:  18=Lk.  7:  33. 

<Mt.  11:14  (cf.  Lk.  1:17);  Ac.  1:5;  11:16.  6Mt.  4:  10-12= Lk.  4:9-17. 

•  Mai.  3:1-3;  4:1.              *  Ver.  11.            8Mt.  4:  2-ll=Lk.  4:  2-13.  »Ver.  6. 

10 Ver.  1.               "Ver.  3.               12Ver.  6.  "Ver.  10.                  "Ver.  13. 

lsCf.  ver.  11  with  Is.  42: 1-4  in  Mt.  12: 18.  18Cf.  Mk.  9:  11. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  1:1,2 


1    IT1HE     BEGINNING      OF     THE     GOSPEL     OF 

X     Jesus  Christ  *[the  Son  of  God]. 


2  TjWEN   as   it   is   written    in   Isaiah   the 
J_J    prophet, 

Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before 
thy  face, 
Who  shall  prepare  thy  way; 


1  Var.  omit  the  Son  of  God. 


Vers.  2-6  =  Mt. 
3:l-6=Lk.  3: 
3-6 

R(Q) 

(Mt.  11:2-19  = 

Lk.  7:  18-35) 
Mai.  3:  1 


Ver.  1.  The  Superscription.  This  title  seems  to  be  prefixed  by  R 
to  the  work  as  a  whole.  In  such  cases  Greek  usage  omits  the  article, 
as  here.    Cf.  Hos.  1 :  2  (Gr.),  "Beginning  of  the  word  of  the  Lord." 

Gospel  has  not  yet  acquired  the  sense  of  a  writing.  It  means,  as  in 
ver.  15  and  14:  9,  the  new  faith.  Cf.  Phil.  4:  15,  "the  beginning  of  the 
gospel."  R  proposes  to  relate  the  origin  of  the  doctrine  and  movement 
concerning  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  already  a  proper  name,  as  in  9:  41; 
otherwise  we  should  have  the  article,  "Jesus  tfie  Christ."  The  evangelist 
writes,  of  course,  at  a  period  later  than  Paul,  whose  Epistles  give 
evidence  of  a  transition  from  the  use  of  Christ  as  a  title,  to  its  use  as  a 
proper  name. 

The  Son  of  God.  If  we  follow  the  manuscripts  which  include  this 
clause,  the  title  must  be  understood  in  the  advanced  sense  indicated  by 
R's  supernaturalism  (see  vers.  11,  13,  24,  34;  12:  35-37;  13:  32;  15:  39, 
etc.;  cf.  Phil.  2:  9-11).  We  have  no  right  to  rationalize  the  term  by 
giving  it  only  the  moral  and  religious  sense  of  Jesus'  own  teaching 
(Q,  Mt.  5:  45;  11:  27  =  Lk.  6:  35;  10:  22).  In  Jesus'  teaching  the  son  is 
he  who  has  come  into  that  filial  relation  with  God  which  is  the  ideal 
for  every  man.  The  generic  use  of  "the  son"  in  Mt.  11:  27  =  Lk.  10:  22 
is  paralleled  in  Jn.  8:  35. 

Vers.  2-6.  The  Appearance  of  the  Baptist.  R  sharpens  the  references 
Jesus  had  made  to  "the  baptism  of  John"  as  a  sign  from  heaven,  a 
movement  more  weighty  of  foreboding  than  even  Jonah's  warning  to 
the  Ninevites  (Q,  Mt.  21:  23-32  =  Lk.  7:  29,  30;  Mt.  11:  10-13;  12:  38f., 
41=Lk.  7:27f.,  16:16;  11:29,  32).  John's  characteristics  now  be- 
come specific  fulfillments  of  the  expected  appearance  of  Elijah  as 
forerunner  of  the  coming  of  "the  Lord"  and  "anointer  of  the  Christ" 
(Justin  M. ,  Dial. ,  viii ,  xlix) .  Two  additions  are  made  for  the  purpose  as 
follows:  (1)  in  ver.  3  a  further  quotation  about  "preparing  the  way 
of  the  Lord,"  is  attached  to  that  from  Mai.  3:1.  R  found  the  former 
in  Isaiah  and  mistakenly  attributes  both  quotations  to  this  source. 
(2)  In  ver.  6  Jesus'  allusions  to  the  Baptist's  ascetic  garb  and  mode 
of  life  (Q,  Mt.  11:  8-18  =Lk.  7:  25,  33)  are  brought  into  exact  corre- 
spondence with  the  Old  Testament  description  of  the  typical  prophet's 
garb  (Zech.  13:  4)  and  more  specifically  with  that  of  Elijah  (II  Kings 
1I8).1  We  note  that  canonical  Luke  (3:5,6)  enlarges  the  former 
addition,  but  cancels  the  latter,  along  with  all  the  rest  of  Mark's  too 
literal  identifications  of  the  Baptist  with  the  Elijan  forerunner  (Mk.  6: 
14-29;  9:  11-13;  15:  34-36).  John  only  came  "in  the  spirit  and  power 
of  Elijah,"  Lk.  1:  17,  76;  cf.  Jn.  1:  21.     Matthew's  most  important 


1  Perhaps  a  later  addition.    See  variant  readings. 


It  3,  4  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


3  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wil- 

derness, 
Make  ye  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
Make  his  paths  straight; 

4  John  came,  who  baptized  in  the  wilderness 
and  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance 


R 

Is.  40:  3 


change  is  to  transfer  the  clause  characterizing  John's  baptism  as 
"unto  remission  of  sins,"  to  Mt.  26:  28,  where  it  characterizes  "the 
cup  of  the  new  covenant"  (cf.  Jn.  1:  26-29). 

Ver.  2.  This  quotation  of  Mai.  3:  1  differs  from  all  others  in  Mark 
in  being  independent  of  the  Septuagint.  As  already  noted,  R  is  bor- 
rowing his  quotation.  It  is  appropriately  made  in  Q  (Mt.  11:  10  = 
Lk.  7:  27),  except  for  the  alteration  of  the  pronoun  ("my  face,"  "my 
way"  [it  is  Jehovah  who  speaks])  to  the  second  person  ("thy  way," 
"thy  face"),  which  makes  the  Baptist  appear  to  be  represented  as  the 
forerunner  of  Jesus.  But  the  Q  discourse  itself  (Mt.  12:  41  =Lk.  11 :  32) 
shows  that  the  "greater  matter  (Gr.)  than  Jonah,"  for  their  disregard 
of  which  this  generation  is  more  guilty  than  the  Ninevites,  was  the 
"sign  from  heaven"  of  John's  baptism  considered  as  fulfilling  Mai.  3:  1 
(cf.  Mt.  21:  23-32).  To  Jesus  this  Great  Repentance  was  a  "sign  of 
the  times"  that  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His  great  Day  of  Judgment 
was  at  hand  (Lk.  13:  54-59).  By  successive  stages  (Q,  Mark)  this  sign 
of  Jonah  is  transformed  into  a  proof  of  his  own  Messiahship. 

Ver.  3  is  a  quotation  from  Is.  40:  3  (Septuagint),  with  the  same 
change  as  before.  "The  ways  of  our  God"  becomes  "his"  ways,  to 
admit  of  application  to  "the  Lord,"  i.e.,  Jesus.  In  the  original  the 
prophet  of  the  return  hears  a  spirit  voice  in  the  desert  that  stretches 
between  the  exiles  and  their  fatherland,  bidding  him  announce  the 
redemption.  Yahweh  is  preparing  a  highway  across  the  desert.  He 
is  about  to  lead  them  back  as  he  led  their  fathers  in  the  pillar  of  fire 
and  cloud.  When  stripped  of  the  merely  verbal  coincidences  in  which 
R  rejoices  ("in  the  wilderness,"  "the  way  of  the  Lord")  the  application 
to  the  new  redemption  as  heralded  by  John  has  poetic  force  and  beauty. 

Ver.  4.  A  brief  substitute  for  the  full  substance  of  John's  preaching 
in  Q  (Mt.  3:  7-12  =  Lk.  3:  7-17).  Mark  takes  no  interest  in  mere  ethical 
teaching  where  it  does  not  subserve^his  demonstration  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

Baptized.  By  immersion  (Rom.  6:4;  I  Cor.  10:2).  To  Mark's 
readers  the  term  requires  no  explanation,  for  its  substantial  identity 
with  the  well-known  Christian  rite  is  assumed.  This  rite  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  employed  by  Jesus  in  his  own  ministry  (Jn.  4:2), 
though  he  anticipates  Paul's  symbolism  (Lk.  12:  50).  It  was  adopted 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Church  as  an  initiatory  rite,  and  was  ac- 
companied by  the  phenomenon  of  "tongues"  and  other  "gifts  of  the 
Spirit,"  which  thus  came  to  differentiate  the  Christian  from  the  Johan- 
nine  sacrament  (Acts  19:  1-7).  For  both  movements  this  non-legal 
observance  was  appropriate  as  a  rite  of  purification  for  the  "people  of 
the  land,"  whose  observance  of  the  Law  would  be  quite  insufficient  for 
"cleansing"  from  the  Pharisaic  point  of  view. 

The  Baptism  of  Repentance  onto  Remission  of  Sins.  John's  bap- 
tism is  to  Mark  identical  with  Christian  save  that  "the  Holy  Ghost  was 
not  yet  given"  (cf.  ver.  8).  This  characterization  of  it  and  the  accom- 
panying confession  of  sin  (ver.  5)  are  therefore  to  him  and  his  readers 
self-evident.    Matthew  differentiates  further  by  suppressing  the  clause 


10 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


1:5-8 


unto  remission  of  sins.  And  there  went 
out  unto  him  all  the  country  of  Judaea, 
and  all  they  of  Jerusalem;  and  they  were 
baptized  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins.  And  John  was  clothed 
with  camel's  xhair,  2[and  (had)  a  leathern 
girdle  about  his  loins],  and  did  eat  locusts 
and  wild  honey.  And  he  preached, 

saying,  There  cometh  after  me  he  that  is 
mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes 
I  am  not  worthy  to  stoop  down  and  un- 
loose. I  baptized  you  with  water; 
but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost. 


1  Var.  skin.         2  Var.  omit  [  ]. 


Vers.7,8=Mt.3: 
ll=Lk.  3:16 

R  (Q) 
(Mt.   3:  11,    12  = 
Lk.     3:  15-17; 
cf.  Jn.  1:  30) 

(X) 
(Act9     1: 5; 
16) 


11: 


which  seemed  to  imply  that  John's  baptism  secured  "remission  of 
sins"  (see  on  vers.  2-6).  Josephus  probably  also  intends  to  differentiate 
the  Johannine  from  the  Christian  rite,  but  with  a  different  motive. 
In  his  representation  (Ant.  XVIII,  v.  2)  John's  baptism  had  neither 
religious  nor  initiational  significance.  Like  the  cold  baths  of  anchorites 
and  Essenes,  it  was  "not  to  expiate  sins,  but  for  the  purification  of  the 
body,  provided  that  the  soul  was  thoroughly  purified  beforehand  by 
righteousness."  But  Josephus'  description  of  the  Baptist's  preaching, 
as  well  as  his  systematic  silence  regarding  Christianity,  is  affected  by 
his  prejudice  against  Messianism  and  the  Zealots. 

Ver.  5.  Confessing  their  Sins.  Developed  in  Lk.  3:  10-14.  Neither 
the  ceremonial  nor  the  moral  requirements  of  John  have  regard  for 
Mosaism. 

Ver.  6.  John's  garb  and  diet  are  those  of  the  ancient  prophet  (Zech. 
13:  4),  especially  Elijah  (II  Kings  1:8).  His  mode  of  life  is  that  of  the 
contemporary  anchorite,  such  as  Banus,  the  teacher  of  Josephus  (Life, 
c.  i),  the  modern  "dervish."  The  description  is  rather  inferred  from 
Q  (see  above)  than  reported  from  observation. 

Vers.  7,  8.  The  Baptist's  Proclamation  of  the  Coming  of  Christ. 
These  two  verses  form  Mark's  substitute  for  the  Baptist's  Preaching 
of  Judgment  (Q,  Mt.  3:  7-12  =  Lk.  3:  7-17).  In  Q  the  warning  to 
repent  in  view  of  impending  doom  is  the  distinctive  feature,  and  the 
disparagement  of  the  speaker  and  his  mere  token  of  repentance  as 
against  the  Executioner  of  fiery  judgment  is  a  digression  to  meet 
questionings  regarding  John's  own  personal  authority  (Lk.  3:  15;  cf. 
Jn.  1:  19-25).  Mark  suppresses  entirely  the  preaching  of  judgment, 
leaving  of  the  Baptist's  message  nothing  but  the  reference  to  the  After- 
comer.  Even  this  he  transforms  from  a  warning  of  the  coming  of  the 
Angel  of  the  Covenant  (Mai.  3:  1;  cf.  Ex.  23:  20,  21),  coupled  with  a 
contrast  of  his  own  baptism  of  water  with  the  Angel's  baptism  of  fire 
(so  Mai.  3:  2, 3 ;  4:  1),  into  a  prediction  of  the  coming  of  Jesus,  coupled 
with  a  contrast  of  the  baptism  of  water  versus  the  Pentecostal 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (cf.  Acts  19:  1-4).  Our  Matthew  and 
Luke  combine  Q  with  Mark  in  the  conflation  "Holy  Ghost  and 
fire." 


1:9  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY  11 


9  And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days 

that  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee, 
and  was  baptized  of  John  in  the  Jordan. 


Vers.  9-ll=Mt. 
3:13-17=Lk. 
3:31-33 

(X) 
Cf.  Mt.  12:  18 


Vers.  9-11.  The  Baptism  of  Christ.  The  importance  attached  by 
Mark  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus  may  be  judged  from  the  pains  he  takes 
(a)  to  make  it  correspond  with  the  Jewish  expectation  that  "the 
Christ — if  he  has  indeed  been  born,  and  exists  anywhere — is  unknown, 
and  does  not  even  know  himself,  and  has  no  power  until  Elias  come 
to  anoint  him,  and  make  him  manifest  to  all"  (Justin  M.,  Dial.,  viii; 
cf.  xlix  and  Jn.  1 :  26-31),  and  (b)  to  make  the  baptism  itself  the  starting 
point  of  Jesus'  endowment  with  the  plenitude  of  the  Spirit,  just  as  in 
the  Church  the  "gifts  of  the  Spirit,"  whether  of  teaching  or  healing, 
were  expected  to  manifest  themselves  in  connection  with  baptism 
(Acts  11 :  15-17).  The  so-called  infancy  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
represent  a  reaction  against  this  "adoptionism,"  which  had  played 
into  the  hands  of  Gnostic  heretics.  Irenseus  (ca.  186  a.d.)  tells  us, 
e.g.,  of  Cerinthus,  who  taught  "that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  human  generation,"  but 
"that  after  his  baptism,  Christ  descended  upon  him  in  the  form  of  a 
dove  from  the  Supreme  Ruler,  and  that  then  he  proclaimed  the  un- 
known Father  and  performed  miracles.  But  at  last  Christ  departed 
from  Jesus,  and  that  then  Jesus  suffered  .  .  .  while  Christ  remained 
impassible  inasmuch  as  he  was  a  spiritual  being"  (Her.  I,  xxvi.  1). 
We  are  not  surprised  to  be  told  later  (Her.  Ill,  xi.  7)  with  allusion  to 
these  same  Docetists  (from  dokesis,  "appearance"),  who  are  also  known 
to  us  from  I  Jn.  2:  22;  5:  6;  II J n.  7,  and  the  Ignatian  Epistles  (110-117 
a.d.),  that  "Those  who  separate  Jesus  from  Christ,  alleging  that  Christ 
remained  impassible,  but  that  it  was  Jesus  who  suffered,  prefer  the 
Gospel  of  Mark."  An  earlier  form  of  the  story  was  still  more  objection- 
able. The  /3  ("western")  text  of  Lk.  3:  22  has  the  Voice  from  heaven 
in  the  form,  "Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee"  quoting 
Ps.  2:  7  as  in  Heb.  5:  5.  The  connected  Q  story  of  the  Temptation 
(Mt.  4:  2-11  =Lk.  4:  2-13)  also  implies  a  revelation  to  Jesus,  "Thou 
art  the  Son  of  God";  so  that  the  representation  is  older  than  Mark. 
It  was  manifestly  based  on  Is.  42:  1  in  the  form  quoted  in  Mt.  12:  18. 
Our  evangelist  has  probably  done  little  more  than  to  substitute  the 
less  objectionable  Voice  of  the  Transfiguration  story  (cf.  the  still  closer 
assimilation  in  Mt.  3:  17)  in  transferring  this  older  account  of  the  bap- 
tism to  his  own  pages.  The  earliest  traceable  form  of  the  doctrine  is 
that  of  Paul  (Rom.  1 :  4),  in  which  Jesus  is  made  the  Son  of  God  by  the 
resurrection.  This  is  still  the  case  in  the  speeches  of  Acts  1-13,  in  which 
the  two  Scripture  passages  employed  in  the  Epistles  as  applying  to 
Jesus'  exaltation  to  the  throne  of  God  (I  Cor.  15:  25;  Phil.  2:9;  Heb. 
1:  5,  13)  are  both  applied  to  the  resurrection  (Acts  2:  34ff.;  13:  33)  and 
Jesus'  mere  earthly  career  is  not  supposed  to  evince  his  Messiahship 
(Acts  3:  20-26).  A  later  stage  appears  in  the  Revelation  to  Peter 
(Mt.  16:  17),  repeated  in  symbolic  form  in  the  Transfiguration  (see 
comment),  an  anticipation  of  the  Resurrection.  The  transfer  of  the 
Voice  from  heaven  to  a  period  before  the  opening  of  the  ministry 
(Mk.  1:9-11)  continues  the  process  of  recession,  which  is  not  com- 
pleted until  the  birth  stories  of  Matthew  and  Luke  and  the  prologue  of 
John  have  carried  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  Messiahship  to  eternity  itself. 

Ver.  9.  From  the  fact  that  later  evangelists  (Mt.  3:  14,  15;  Ev. 
Hebr.,  fragt.  3;  ed.  Preuschen  Antilegomena)  were  scandalized  at  the 


12  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        It  10,  JI 


10  And  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter, he  saw  the  heavens  rent  asunder,  and  the 

11  Spirit  as  a  dove  descending  1upon  him:  and 
a  voice  came  out  of  the  heavens,  Thou  art 
my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased. 


1  Var.  into. 


(Mk.  9:  7=Mt. 
17:5=Lk.  9: 
35;  cf.  Lk.  3: 
22  p) 


thought  of  Jesus'  undergoing  a  "baptism  of  repentance  for  remission 
of  sins,"  we  may  be  sure  that  the  baptism  itself  was  not  a  matter  of 
later  invention.  To  Jesus  the  rite  would  certainly  not  be  appropriate 
as  a  means  of  "fulfilling  all  righteousness"  (with  Mt.  3:  15  cf.  Mk. 
2;  18-20);  but  as  a  return  to  the  simplicity  of  the  prophets  (cf.  Is.  1:  16; 
Jer.  4:  14;  Ps.  51:  2,  etc.)  in  the  preparation  of  Israel  for  the  Day  of 
Yahweh,  it  might  well  have  his  sympathy  and  even  participation.  The 
baptism  of  John  had  a  forward  look  as  well  as  backward;  it  was  a  rite 
of  initiation  "to  make  ready  for  the  Lord  a  people  prepared  for  him" 
(Lk.  1:  17),  by  a  way  practicable  even  for  the  "people  of  the  land." 
By  participation  in  it,  Jesus  joined  himself  to  this  his  own  class  in  their 
great  movement  for  access  to  God  outside  the  rigid  legalism  of  the 
synagogue. 

Ver.  10.  The  "vision"  in  biblical  conception  is  simply  a  wider  open- 
ing of  the  senses  till  spiritual  realities  become  perceptible  (II  Kings 
6:  17).  In  Mark,  Jesus  alone  seems  to  be  the  clairvoyant-clairaudient. 
In  Matthew  some  of  the  bystanders  also  are  at  least  clairaudient  ("This 
is,"  etc.).  In  Luke  all  present  are  both  clairvoyant  ("in  a  bodily 
form")  and  clairaudient.  In  John  only  the  Baptist,  because  the  Word 
of  God  requires  no  illumination  as  to  his  own  nature  and  calling,  while 
his  forerunner  is  charged  with  no  other  duty  than  to  "make  him  known 
to  Israel"  (Jn.  1:31-34).  The  historical  basis  of  the  representation 
need  not  be  an  actual  ecstatic  experience.  Jesus'  illumination  never 
shows  the  pathological  type  seen  in  Paul,  the  man  of  "visions  and 
revelations."  In  the  conventional  symbolism  of  the  period  normal 
spiritual  experiences  are  expressed  in  the  language  of  vision  (Lk.  10:  18; 
Mt.  16:  17). 

Rent  Asunder.  Matthew,  Luke  (Q?),  "open."  Mark  assimilates  to 
Is.  64:  1. 

As  a  dove.  Type  of  the  divine  Wisdom  in  Philo  (Quis  rerum  div. 
her.  i,  491). 

Upon  him.  The  better  form  of  this  reading  is  "descending  and 
abiding  upon  him."  But  the  true  reading  (so  Westcott  and  Hort)  is 
"descending  into  him"  (see  var.).  The  reading  of  the  R.  V.  is  a  sub- 
stitution due  to  doctrinal  reflection.  In  the  original  Jesus  now  becomes 
the  Son  of  God  by  adoption. 

A  Voice  out  of  the  heavens.  The  bath  qol  of  Talmudic  teachers,  a 
stereotyped  expression  for  revelation,  employed  also  by  the  Synoptists 
(Mk.  9:  7  and  parallels;  Acts  10:  13).  In  Jn.  12:  29  it  is  conceived  as 
physically  audible,  and  probably  here;  but  cf.  Mt.  16:  17. 

Thou  art,  etc.  Render:  "my  Son,  the  Beloved,  he  whom  I  elected." 
The  terms  "Son,"  "Beloved,"  "elected"  are  all  technical,  constantly 
employed  with  their  equivalents  in  relation  to  the  pre-creative  decree 
of  God  by  which  he  elected  in  his  foreknowledge  a  people  (and  specifi- 
cally their  Leader  and  Head)  to  be  his  Son,  and  Heir  of  the  creation  he 
contemplated.  According  to  Pauline  theology  God  "elected  us  in  him 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  .  .  .  having  in  love  foreordained  us 


Jt  12,  13         THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY  13 


12  And  straightway  the  Spirit  driv- 

13  eth  him  forth  into  the  wilderness.  And  he 
was  in  the  wilderness  forty  days  tempted  of 
Satan;  and  he  was  with  the  wild  beasts; 
and  the  angels  ministered  unto  him. 


Vers.12, 13=Mt. 
4:l,3=L,k.  4: 
1,  2 

„.      R  <Q> 

(Mt.  4:2-11  = 

Lk.  4:  2-13) 


to  an  adoption  as  sons  through  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  will  ...  in  the  Beloved"  (Eph.  1:  4-6,  R.  V.  marg.). 
This  is  simply  a  combination  of  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of  Israel 
as  God's  son  (Ex.  4:  22;  Hos.  11:  1)  and  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
for  man's  dominion  (Gen.  1:  26-28;  Ps.  8:  6;  cf.  II  Esdr.  6:  55),  with 
that  of  the  Messiah  as  Head  and  Representative  of  God's  perfected 
people.  Hence  the  titles  of  the  people:  "The  saints,"  "the  just," 
"the  elect,"  "the  beloved"  become  in  the  singular  his  titles:  "The  Holy- 
One  of  God"  (Mk.  1:  24,  etc.),  "the  Just"  (Acts  3:  14;  7:  52;  22:  14), 
"the  Elect"  (Lk.  9:  35;  23:  35),  "the  Beloved"  (Eph.  1:  6).  The  latter 
is  the  favorite  title  for  the  Messiah  in  the  Visio  Isaice  (ca.  125  a.d.). 
The  tense  of  the  verb  requires  the  translation  "chose,"  not  "am  well 
pleased."  The  evangelist  introduces  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  fore- 
ordination  and  election,  a  characteristic  Markan  trait  (see  on  4:  11). 

Vers.  12,  13.  The  Temptation  Story.  In  Q  this  vision-story  is  con- 
tinuous with  that  of  the  Baptism,  or  Vocation,  interpreting  its  sig- 
nificance (what  is  to  follow  "if  thou  art  the  Son  of  God").  In  Mark 
only  the  external  elements  are  borrowed:  Jesus  is  superior  to  Satan, 
the  wild  beasts,  the  angels. 

Ver.  12.  Driveth  (Matthew,  Luke,  "led")  him  forth.  Jesus  now  acts 
under  the  irresistible  impulse  of  the  Spirit  which  had  come  "into" 
(Matthew,  Luke,  "upon")  him  at  his  baptism  (cf.  Acts  8:  39;  I  Kings 
18:  12,  46).  His  identity  is  now  merged  in  that  of  the  Spirit,  as  the 
identity  of  the  "possessed"  is  merged  in  that  of  the  "demon"  or 
"demons." 

Ver.  13.  In  the  wilderness  forty  days  tempted  (cf.  Dt.  8:2).  The 
next  verse  (Dt.  8:  3)  is  quoted  in  the  first  temptation  (Mt.  4:4  = 
Lk.  4:  4). 

"With  the  wild  beasts  (cf.  Job  5:  22,  23;  Dan.  6:  23).  In  Ps.  91:  13 
(quoted  in  the  temptation  on  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple  Mt.  4:6  = 
Lk.  4:  10,  11)  dominion  over  the  wild  beasts  is  coupled  with  the  promise 
of  service  by  angels.  The  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (ca.  100 
B.C.)  have  similar  promises  to  the  righteous:  "The  devil  will  flee  from 
you,  and  the  wild  beasts  will  fear  you,  and  the  angels  will  take  your 
part."  Conversely,  "the  devil  and  every  wild  beast"  has  dominion 
over  the  wicked  (Napht.  viii;  cf.  Issach.  vii). 


14  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


THE  FIRST  SABBATH  IN  CAPERNAUM 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  b.  1 :  14-45.  When  the  movement  of  the  Bap- 
tist was  abruptly  terminated  by  the  imprisonment  of  the  prophet, 
Jesus  began  a  work  of  rescue  by  proclaiming  to  the  people 
of  Galilee  the  gospel  of  salvation  by  faith. 

Vers.  16-20.  Summoning  to  his  aid  two  pairs  of  brothers 
who  were  engaged  in  their  craft  as  fishermen  beside  the  lake 
near  Capernaum,  he  won  their  instant  support. 

Vers.  21-28.  On  the  ensuing  sabbath  he  proclaimed  his 
message  in  the  synagogue,  startling  his  hearers  by  the  authority 
of  his  proclamation.  But  a  demon  which  held  in  possession  a 
man  who  was  in  the  synagogue  recognized  the  Spirit  which  was 
in  Jesus,  and  cried  out  in  fear,  calling  him  the  Holy  One  of 
God.  Jesus  thereupon  rebuked  the  demon,  bidding  it  begone. 
Immediately  the  man  was  delivered  from  the  evil  spirit's  control, 
to  the  amazement  of  all  who  heard  of  it. 

Vers.  29-31.  The  same  day  in  the  house  of  Simon,  after 
their  return  from  the  synagogue,  Simon's  wife's  mother  was 
healed  of  a  fever  at  the  touch  of  Jesus'  hand. 

Vers.  32-34.  The  result  of  these  events  was  a  concourse  of 
people  to  the  door  of  Simon's  house,  as  soon  as  the  sabbath  was 
over,  many  being  healed.  The  demons  also  that  were  driven 
out  knew  Jesus  to  be  Christ,  but  he  would  not  permit  them  to 
speak. 

Vers.  35-39.  When  on  the  morrow  Simon  and  his  com- 
panions sought  Jesus,  expecting  him  to  again  meet  the  impor- 
tunities of  the  multitude,  they  found  that  he  had  left  house  and 
city  long  before  dawn.  When  they  came  upon  him  in  a  solitary 
place,  they  found  him  engaged  in  prayer;  but  he  refused  to  re- 
turn to  Capernaum,  regarding  it  as  his  mission  rather  to  pro- 
claim the  gospel.  Jesus  went,  accordingly,  to  the  other  syna- 
gogues of  Galilee. 

Vers.  40-45.  So  great  was  the  disposition  to  declare  Jesus' 
fame  as  a  healer  that  his  own  strictest  injunctions  of  secrecy 
were  unavailing.  Thus,  having  on  one  occasion  healed  a 
leper,  Jesus  sent  him  to  the  priest  to  offer  the  sacrifice  pre- 
scribed for  recovery  from  this  disease,  and  strictly  forbade  him 
to  make  it  known.  But  the  man  only  proclaimed  Jesus'  fame 
the  wider. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY  15 


SUBDIVISION  B.    Vers.  14-45.— CRITICISM 

Subdivision  b  begins  the  narrative  precisely  as  in  the  speech  of  Peter 
in  Csesarea.1  It  is  mainly  occupied  with  the  story  of  the  opening  sab- 
bath of  Jesus'  ministry.  The  group  of  incidents  centers  about  the 
call  of  Peter  and  his  fishing  partners,  Peter's  house  serving  as  head- 
quarters. We  have  no  reason  to  question  that  in  substance2  it  repre- 
sents the  story  of  Peter,  as  tradition  has  always  connected  it  with 
this  Gospel.  Only  the  incident  of  the  Leper3  stands  without  chrono- 
logical or  causal  relation  to  the  rest,  an  appended  illustration  of  the 
difficulty  of  setting  bounds  to  the  spreading  of  Jesus'  fame  as  a  healer. 
In  this  paragraph4  the  continuous  coincidence  of  Matthew  with  Luke 
against  Mark  shows  that  it  is  the  latter  who  is  retouching  an  older 
source  (X)  independently  employed  in  simpler  form  by  Matthew  and 
Luke.  What  this  older  source  was  we  have  no  means  of  judging,  any 
more  than  we  can  determine  the  period  to  which  the  healing  belongs. 
It  may  be  worth  noting,  however,  that  Lk.  17:  11-19  refers  the  heal- 
ing of  a  leper  to  the  Peraean  ministry,  while  in  14:3  the  hospitable 
roof  which  shelters  Jesus  at  the  time  of  the  anointing5  is  "the  house  of 
Simon  the  Leper." 


1  Acts  10:  37,  38.  *  See,  however,  on  ver.  24.  »  Vers.  40-45. 

4  Vers.  40-43. 

6  In  Jn.   12:  1  connected  with  the  house  of  Mary  and  Martha,  perhaps  a  Peraean 
family  (Lk.  10:  38-42). 


16 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY         lj  14-20 


14  "VTOW  after  that  John  was  delivered  up 
JlN     Jesus   came    into    Galilee,   preaching 

15  the  gospel  of  God,  and  saying,  The 
time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand:  repent  ye,  and  believe  in  the 
gospel. 

16  And  passing  along  by  the  sea  of 
Galilee,  he  saw  Simon  and  Andrew  the 
brother  of  Simon  casting  a  net  in  the  sea: 

17  for  they  were  fishers.  And  Jesus  said  unto 
them,  Come  ye  after  me,  and  I  will  make  you 

18  to  become  fishers  of  men.  And  straight- 
way they  left  their  nets,  and  followed  him. 

19  And  going  on  a  little  further,  he  saw  James 
the  (son)  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his  brother, 
who  also  were  in  the  boat  mending  the 

20  nets.  And  straightway  he  called  them: 
and  they  left  their  father  Zebedee  in  the 
boat  with  the  hired  servants,  and  went 
after  him. 


Vers.14, 15=Mt. 
4:12-17=Lk. 
4:14,    15;    Cf. 

Acts  10:  37 
R(Q) 
(Mt.  10:  7=Lk. 
9:2) 


Vers.l6-20=Mt. 
4:18-22=Lk. 
5:1-11 

(P) 


Jer.  16:  16 


Vers.  14,  15.  The  traditional  "beginning  of  the  gospel"  (Acts  10:  36- 
38).  In  Jn.  1-4  the  beginning  is  carried  back  to  an  earlier  period  (Jn. 
2:11;  3:24;  4:1-3,  43-45).  The  temporal  sequence  established  by 
Luke  (Lk.  4:5,  9,  14)  between  the  Temptation  and  the  corning  into 
Galilee  is  foreign  to  Mark,  where  ver.  14  is  separated  by  an  indefinite 
interval  from  the  preceding  context.  There  is  not  even  a  causal  con- 
nection with  the  Baptist's  arrest,  as  in  Matthew  (4:  12). 

After  that  John  was  delivered  tip  is  simply  a  date  from  an  event 
assumed  to  be  known,  though  related  as  if  unknown  in  6:  17-29.  But 
from  ver.  17  (see  note)  and  6:34  (cf.  14:27)  we  may  reasonably 
infer  a  causal  relation.  This  was  not  fear  (Mt.  4:  12).  Flight  from 
Antipas  would  not  have  led  Jesus  to  begin  his  work  under  the  very 
eaves  of  the  tyrant's  palace.  Avoidance  of  the  appearance  of  com- 
petition with  the  Baptist  (Jn.  4:  1-3)  is  equally  improbable.  The 
motive  is  continuation  of  John's  work  for  the  masses.  The  imprison- 
ment of  the  great  Restorer  of  the  tribes  had  left  the  movement  of  the 
"publicans  and  sinners"  without  a  leader  (6:  34).  Jesus  proposes  (ver. 
17)  a  campaign  of  restoration  of  the  "lost  sheep." 

Galilee.  Where  the  masses  of  the  "people  of  the  land"  were  to  be 
found;  the  least  enlightened  region  (Mt.  4:  16). 

The  time  is  fulfilled  .  .  .  believe  in  the  gospel.  Definitions  of  the 
gospel  of  God  in  Pauline  phraseology  (Gal.  4:4;  Rom.  1:  16;  10:  4) 
attached  by  Mark  to  the  phrase  of  Q  (Mt.  10:  7  =Lk.  9:  2;  10:  11). 

Vers.  16-20.  To  Mark  the  significance  of  this  opening  incident  of 
the  ministry  centers  about  the  renunciation  made  by  the  four  disciples 
(cf.  2:  14;  10:  27).  The  less  said  of  previous  acquaintance  the  more 
remarkable  will  this  appear,  as  when  Elisha  followed  Elijah  (I  Kings 
19:  19-21).  For  the  modern  historian  the  center  of  all  interest  is 
the  saying  of  Jesus  which  embodies  the  invitation  the  men  followed; 
for  it  reveals  the  object  which  had  brought  him  into  the  field.  This  is 
easily  seen  by  comparison  of  Jesus'  frequent  allusions  to  his  mission 


1:21-24         THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY  17 


21  ^And  they  go  into  Capernaum];  and 
straightway  on  the  sabbath  day  he  entered 

22  into  the  synagogue  and  taught.  And  they 
were  astonished  at  his  teaching:  for  he 
taught  them  as  having  authority,  and  not 

23  as  the  scribes.  And  straightway  there  was 
in  their  synagogue  a  man  with  an  unclean 

24  spirit;  and  he  cried  out,  saying, 
What  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou  Jesus 
of  Nazareth?  art  thou  come  to  destroy  us? 
I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One  of 

1  Var.  omit  [  ]. 


Vers.  21-28=Lk. 

4 :  31-37 

P 


R 

(5:  7;  cf.  Acts  16: 

16;  19:  15) 


to  "the  lost  sheep"  or  "sinners"  (Mt.  15:  24;  Mk.  2:  17;  Lk.  19:  10), 
and  still  more  by  comparison  of  the  Old  Testament  use  of  the  figure 
(Jer.  16:  16).  He  means  to  gather  the  outcasts  of  Israel.  For  this 
it  is  significant  that  Johannine  tradition  records  an  earlier  association 
of  Jesus  with  these  men  at  the  baptism  of  John,  and  even  a  joint  par- 
ticipation in  that  ministry  (Jn.  3:  26;  4:2).  Later  development  of 
the  story  (Lk.  5:  1-11  =Jn.  21:  1-11)  naturally  avails  itself  of  the  say- 
ing as  of  chief  importance,  extending  its  application  to  the  Gentiles  also. 

Vers.  21,  22.  Jesus  begins  his  mission  from  the  vantage  ground  of 
the  synagogue,  a  non-legal,  popular  place  of  assembly  and  worship. 
"Men  and  brethren"  who  had  "any  word  of  exhortation  for  the  peo- 
ple" might  "say  on"  when  given  opportunity  by  the  presiding  "rulers 
of  the  synagogue"  (Acts  13:  15).  Not  the  fact,  nor  the  subject,  of 
Jesus'  address  (ver.  15)  surprises  the  people,  but  its  unconventional 
directness  of  manner.  Like  the  prophets,  like  the  Baptist,  Jesus  in- 
terpreted the  living,  inwardly  speaking  God.  The  scribes  interpreted 
books  and  traditions. 

Vers.  23-28.  The  Beginning  of  Miracles.  The  opening  sabbath 
in  Capernaum  is  signalized  not  merely  for  the  Synoptic  evangelists 
but  for  Jesus  himself  by  an  unforeseen  and  startling  development 
which  leads  Jesus  after  a  vigil  of  prayer  to  suddenly  break  off  the 
work  in  Capernaum  and  betake  himself  to  the  less  populous  towns 
(ver.  38)  and  ultimately  (ver.  45)  the  country  districts.  An  exorcism 
produced  by  his  mere  word  in  the  synagogue  was  followed  by  a  healing 
at  Peter's  house,  and  this  by  the  importunities  of  a  clamorous  multi- 
tude bringing  their  sick  to  the  door  as  soon  as  the  setting  of  the  sabbath 
sun  allowed.  In  a  single  day  Jesus  found  himself  endowed — and  en- 
cumbered— with  the  fame  of  a  miraculous  healer.  The  only  element 
of  the  story  which  calls  for  criticism  is  the  cry  placed  by  Mark  in  the 
mouth  of  the  "spirit,"  a  duplicate  of  5:  7  manifestly  dependent  upon 
the  special  theory  of  this  evangelist  expressed  in  1:  35  and  3:  11,  12. 
The  fact  that  Matthew  cancels  this  whole  incident  (though  he  com- 
pensates by  doubling  that  of  5:  1-20),  omits  1:  35,  and  alters  3:  11,  12 
into  a  command  to  the  recovered  sick  "not  to  make  him  known,"  proves 
that  he  does  not  accept  Mark's  theory  of  demonic  recognition.  On 
5:  7  see  below. 

Ver.  24.  He  (or  it)  cried  out.  Just  as  utterances  of  prophets  "in 
the  Spirit"  are  regarded  as  independent  of  the  inspired  organ  (Acts 
20:  23;  21:  11),  so  not  utterances  only,  but  acts  of  the  "possessed," 
are  attributed  to  the  "spirit"  (ver.  34;  3:  11,  12;  5:  6,  7).    This  "spirit" 


18 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        it  25-34 


25  God.  And  Jesus  rebuked  ^im,  say- 
ing, Hold  thy  peace,  and  come  out  of  him. 

26  And  the  unclean  spirit,  Hearing  him  and 
crying  with  a  loud  voice,  came  out  of  him. 

27  And  they  were  all  amazed,  insomuch  that 
they  questioned  among  themselves,  saying, 
What  is  this?  a  new  teaching!  with  authority 
he  commandeth  even  the  unclean  spirits, 

28  and  they  obey  him.  And  the  report  of 
him  went  out  straightway  everywhere  into 
all  the  region  of  Galilee  round  about. 

29  And  straightway,  when  3they  were 
come  out  of  the  synagogue,  they  came  into 
the   house   of   Simon   and   Andrew,    with 

30  James  and  John.  Now  Simon's  wife's 
mother  lay  sick  of  a  fever;  and  straightway 

31  they  tell  him  of  her:  and  he  came  and  took 
her  by  the  hand,  and  raised  her  up ;  and  the 
fever  left  her,  and  she  ministered  unto  them. 

32  And  4[at  even,]  when  the  sun  did  set, 
they  brought  unto  him  all  that  were  sick, 
and  them  that  were  possessed  with  devils. 

33  And  all  the  city  was  gathered  together  at 

34  the  door.  And  he  healed  many  that  were 
sick  with  divers  diseases,  and  cast  out  many 
devils;  and  he  suffered  not  the 
devils  to  speak,  because  they  knew  him5. 


1  Or,  it.        2  Or,  convulsing.       3  Var.  he  was  come  .  .  .  he  came. 
*  Var.  omit  [  J.  5  Var.  add  to  be  Christ,  as  in  Luke. 


Vers.29-31=Mt. 
8:  14,  15=Lk. 
4:38,  39 
P 


Vers.32-34=Mt. 
8:16=Lk.    4: 
40,  41 
P 


Cf.  3:  11,  12;  5:  7 
and  Acts  16:  16 


speaks  in  the  name  of  all  the  demons,  who  recognize  their  predestined 
conqueror  and  anticipate  their  fate. 

Ver.  25.  Hold  thy  peace.  Originally,  as  in  4:  39,  a  simple  vehement 
command  of  silence  (Gr.,  "be  muzzled")-  Mark  interprets  the  cry  as 
a  disclosure  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  which  the  latter  would  fore- 
stall (cf.  1:  34;  3:  12,  and  Acts  16:  18). 

Ver.  27.  A  new  teaching!  Or,  "a  new  teaching  with  authority!  Even 
the  unclean  spirits  he  commandeth,"  etc.  (cf.  ver.  22). 

Ver.  30.  They  (impersonal,  as  constantly  in  Mark)  tell  hfm  of  her — 
encouraged  by  the  incident  just  witnessed  in  the  synagogue.  The 
sudden  seizure  of  the  victim  of  the  malarial  fevers  common  to  this  re- 
gion with  fits  of  shivering,  gave  color  to  the  popular  diagnosis  of 
"spirits"  (cf.  Lk.,  "he  rebuked  the  fever"). 

Ver.  32.  When  the  s«n  did  set.  Carrying  of  burdens  was  not  permissi- 
ble on  the  sabbath.  The  first  day  of  the  week  began  at  sunset.  Mt.  8:16, 
in  transferring  the  trait,  omits  to  mention  that  it  was  the  sabbath. 

Ver.  33.  All  the  city — an  artless  exaggeration  (cf.  ver.  45;  2:  2; 
3:  9,  20;  6:  31;  Acts  13:  44;  17:  5;  19:  29;  21:  30).  Matthew  transfers 
from  ver.  16  to  ver.  34. 

Ver.  34.  The  devils  .  .  .  knew  him.    On  Mark's  theory  of  demonic 


1:35-40 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


19 


35  And  in  the  morning,  a  great  while  before 
day,  he  rose  up  and  went  out,  and  departed 

36  into  a  desert  place,  and  there  prayed.  And 
Simon  and  they  that  were  with  him  fol- 

37  lowed  after  him;  and  they  found  him,  and 

38  say  unto  him,  All  are  seeking  thee.  And  he 
saith  unto  them,  Let  us  go  elsewhere  into 
the    mext  towns,  that  I  may  preach  there 

39  also ;  for  to  this  end  came  I  forth.  And  he 
went  into  their  synagogues  throughout  all 
Galilee,  preaching  and  casting  out  devils. 

40  And  there  cometh  to  him  a  leper,  be- 
seeching   him,    2[and    kneeling    down    to 

1  Var.  neighboring  villages  and  the  cities. 

2  Var.  omit  and  kneeling  down  to  him. 


Vers.  35-39=Lk. 

4 : 43-44 

P 


Cf.  3:  14;  Acts  10: 
38 


Vers.40-t5=Mt. 
8:3-4=Lk.  5: 
12-16;  cf.  Lk. 
17:  11-19 

R(X) 


recognition,  its  possible  source  in  the  incident  of  Acts  16:  16,  and  its 
treatment  by  Matthew,  see  above,  p.  17.  Mark  is  not  concerned  to  ask 
what  would  be  the  effect  on  the  bystanders  of  such  coincident  super- 
natural recognitions. 

Vers.  35-39.  Jesus'  "Withdrawal  and  Vigil  of  Prayer.  This  incident, 
closing  the  story  of  the  opening  sabbath  of  Jesus'  ministry  in  Caper- 
naum, though  omitted  by  Matthew,  and  quite  emasculated  by  the 
changes  of  Luke,  is  of  the  highest  significance  for  the  light  reflected 
upon  Jesus'  own  attitude  toward  his  newly  disclosed  powers  of  heal- 
ing. Manifestly  they  were  by  no  means  to  him  the  subject  of  elation 
they  appear  to  have  been  to  "Simon  and  they  that  were  with  him" 
(ver.  37).  Realizing  the  obstacle  they  would  prove  to  his  more  vital 
mission  (ver.  38),  he  could  not  sleep,  but  withdrew  for  a  night  of  prayer 
outside  the  city.  His  refusal  to  return,  and  the  subsequent  unceasing 
conflict  between  the  compassion  which  prompted  him  to  heal  the  sick, 
and  the  unwillingness  to  degrade  his  calling  into  that  of  a  mere  miracle- 
monger  (Q,  Mt.  12:  39=Lk.  11:  29),  which  led  him  as  much  as  possible 
to  withdraw  from  their  importunities,  are  inimitably  historical  and 
highly  significant  traits,  all*  the  more  cogent  as  evidences  of  authenticity 
from  Mark's  complete  blindness  to  the  real  reasons  for  reserve  (cf.  8:  12). 

Ver.  35.  Desert,  i.e.,  solitary. 

Ver.  36.  Simon.  Mark  consistently  refrains  from  using  the  name 
"Peter"  before  3:  16.  Followed.  Gr.,  "hunted  him  down."  Towns. 
Gr.,  "village-cities";  smaller  places  where  the  thronging  would  be  less. 

Ver.  38.  To  this  end  came  I  forth  (i.e.,  from  the  city) ;  viz,  to  avoid 
the  interference  with  my  preaching.  Luke  interprets  of  the  "sending" 
from  heaven. 

Ver.  39.  Preaching  and  Casting  Oat  Devils  (cf.  3:  14,  15  and  Acts  10: 
38).  Exorcism  is  the  typical  mighty  work  for  all  the  Synoptic  writers, 
and  doubtless  was  the  characteristic  form  of  Jesus'  healing  (Q,  Mt. 
12:  27,  28  =  Lk.  11:  19,  20).  All  the  more  significant  is  the  silence  of 
Paul  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  regarding  this  feature.  In  the  more  cul- 
tured circles  the  popular  beliefs  on  this  subject  had  long  since  been 
stigmatized  as  superstitions. 

Vers.  40-45.  Cleansing  of  a  Leper.  This  incident  has  no  chronological 
or  pragmatic  relation  to  the  preceding,  and  seems  to  be  derived  from  a 


20  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       1:41-43 


him,]  and  saying  unto  him,  If  thou  wilt, 

41  thou  canst  make  me  clean.  And  being 
moved  with  Compassion,  he  stretched 
forth  his  hand,  and  touched  him,  and  saith 

42  unto  him,  I  will;  be  thou  made  clean.  And 
straightway    the    leprosy    departed    from 

43  him,  and  he  was  made  clean.  And  he 
strictly  charged  him,  and  straightway  sent 


1  Var.  anger. 


written  source  known  in  simpler  form  to  Matthew  and  Luke  (cf.  the 
descriptive  additions  of  Mark  in  vers.  41-43  and  their  coincident  varia- 
tion from  Mark  in  40,  41).  Its  literary  relation  to  the  context  is  illustra- 
tive of  the  spread  of  Jesus'  fame  as  a  healer  even  against  his  own  most 
strenuous  commands  of  secrecy  (see  on  ver.  43);  and  thus  it  forms 
an  appropriate  conclusion  (ver.  45)  to  the  subdivision  (1:  14-45).  In 
Mt.  8:  2-4  (and  Lk.  17:  11-19?)  it  subserves  another  purpose,  and 
originally  would  seem  to  have  been  connected  with  the  series  of  "works 
of  the  Christ"  which  become  an  occasion  of  "stumbling"  to  the  Jews 
(Q,  Mt.  11:  5,  6  =  Lk.  7:  22,  23;  10:  13;  cf.  Mk.  2:  1-22).  The  mistaken 
identification  of  the  ancient  curable  (Lev.  14:  3)  disease  known  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  tsara'ath,  and  in  the  New  Testament  as  lepra,  with 
the  incurable  modern  "leprosy"  (Gr.,  elephantiasis)  has  led  a  number 
of  modern  critics  to  exclude  this  cure  from  the  general  category  of  the 
admitted  healings  of  Jesus.  These,  from  the  religious  viewpoint,  are 
termed  properly  (in  distinction  from  relic-healing  and  the  charlatanism 
which  now  exploits  the  name)  "faith"  cures.  Medically  they  are 
termed  "psychological,"  or  cures  by  suggestion.  Mental  disorders 
("evil  spirits"),  hysteria  (Lk.  8:  2),  and  paralysis  (2:  1-12)  are  naturally 
prominent,  but  fever  (1:  29-31),  flux  (5:  29),  collapse  (5:  42),  functional 
affections  of  sight  and  hearing  (7:  32-37;  8:  22-26;  Q,  Mt.  12:  22=Lk. 
11:  14),  epileptic  seizures  (9:  14-29),  and  "leprosy"  (lepra)  are  far 
from  snowing  obduracy  to  this  mode  of  treatment.  The  description 
here  given  of  instantaneous  change  to  healthy  tissue  is,  of  course, 
dominated  by  Mark's  conception  of  Jesus'  healings  as  wonders  of 
omnipotence.  With  reasonable  allowance  for  exaggeration  in  detail, 
we  have  no  need  to  reject  the  representation  that  the  "lepers  were 
cleansed,"  though  the  present  instance  cannot  be  included  in  the  narra- 
tive of  Peter. 

Vers.  40,  41.  Matthew  and  Luke  here  agree  verbatim  for  fifteen 
consecutive  Greek  words.  Mark  differs  by  omission,  addition,  and 
transposition.  The  two  dependent  Gospels  cannot  have  coincided 
accidentally.     Either  one  is  influenced  by  the  other,  or  both  by  X. 

Ver.  41.  Being  moved  with  compassion.  An  adaptation  to  the  con- 
text absent  from  Matthew-Luke.  In  ver.  38  Jesus'  withdrawal  from 
similar  importunities  had  been  related.     The  man's  faith  is  made 

Erominent  in  ver.  40,  as  in  the  series  of  anecdotes  of  healings  in  c.  5; 
ut  Mark  is  not  now  concerned  with  this  feature. 
Ver.  43.  Strictly  (Gr.,  "roaring  at  him").  The  only  other  New 
Testament  occurrences  of  the  word  are  in  Mk.  14:  5;  Mt.  9:  30,  and  Jn. 
11:33,  38,  the  other  Gospels  doubtless  borrowing  the  harsh  term  from 
Mark.  The  evangelist  lays  the  greatest  possible  emphasis  upon  the 
command  in  order  to  bring  out  his  point  (cf.  3:  5  and  Lk.  6:  10). 


1:44,  45        THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


21 


44  him  out,  and  saith  unto  him,  See  thou  say 
nothing  to  any  man:  but  go  thy  way,  shew 
thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  for  thy 
cleansing   the   things    which   Moses    com- 

45  manded,  for  a  testimony  unto  them.  But 
he  went  out,  and  began  to  publish  it  much, 
and  to  spread  abroad  the  Matter,  inso- 
much that  2Jesus  could  no  more  openly 
enter  into  3a  city,  but  was  without  in 
desert  places:  and  they  came  to  him  from 
every  quarter. 


1  Gr.  word. 


2  Gr.  he. 


3  Or,  the  city. 


Lev.  14:1-32 


Ver.  44.  For  a  testimony.  Moses  required  this  formal  recognition. 
Without  it  ceremonial  defilement  would  occur.  In  the  primitive 
form  of  the  story,  the  direction  "Go  show  thyself  to  the  priest"  was 
probably  the  nucleus  and  point  of  bearing  of  the  whole.  For  this 
reason  Matthew  attaches  it  after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  prove 
Jesus'  fidelity  to  the  law.  Mark's  idea  of  the  "testimony"  thus  given 
seems  to  be  somewhat  different;  cf.  6:  11  (Q,  Mt.  10:  14-16  =  Lk.  9:  5; 
10:  10-12);  13:  9  =  Mt.  10:  18  =  Lk.  21:  13  and  II  Tim.  4:  17.  There  is 
to  be  no  excuse  for  Jewish  unbelief. 


22  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


GROWTH  OF  OPPOSITION 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  c.  2:  1 — 3:  6.  The  work  of  Jesus  among  the 
people  of  the  land  soon  evoked  opposition  from  the  synagogue 
authorities  the  scribes,  and  their  followers  the  Pharisees.  Be- 
ginning with  a  murmur  against  his  assumed  authority  to  for- 
give sins  as  blasphemy,  it  took  more  and  more  acute  form  until 
after  a  collision  on  the  observance  of  the  sabbath  the  Pharisees 
began  to  plot  with  the  adherents  of  Herod  against  Jesus'  life. 

2:  1-12.  When  his  authority  to  forgive  sins  was  challenged, 
Jesus  proved  that  as  Son  of  man  he  had  this  authorization; 
for  in  response  to  his  word  of  command  a  paralytic  rose  to 
his  feet  and  carried  forth  the  pallet  on  which  he  had  been  brought. 

Vers.  13-17.  When  fault  was  found  with  his  association 
with  outcasts  from  the  synagogue,  Jesus  answered  that  the  invi- 
tation he  came  to  bring  was  meant  for  these. 

Vers.  18-22.  When  reproached  for  neglect  of  the  set  fasts 
observed  by  the  Baptist's  followers  as  well  as  the  Pharisees, 
Jesus  replied  that  his  followers  would  fast  when  fasting  became 
the  natural  expression  of  their  sorrow,  and  added  sayings 
which  implied  the  need  a  new  religion  will  feel  for  forms 
adapted  to  express  its  own  inner  life. 

Vers.  23-28.  The  Pharisees  were  especially  shocked  by  the 
neglect  of  Jesus'  disciples  to  follow  the  scribes'  prescriptions 
of  the  minutice  of  sabbath  observance.  But  he  referred  them 
to  the  disregard  of  David  for  legal  requirements,  and  claimed 
the  right  as  the  Son  of  man  to  set  aside  the  sabbath  in  case  of 
need. 

3: 1-6.  In  the  instance  of  one  who  on  the  sabbath  sought  to 
be  healed  of  a  withered  hand,  Jesus  even  took  the  aggressive, 
demanding  whether  the  law  were  meant  as  a  help  or  a  hindrance 
to  human  welfare.  Receiving  no  reply,  he  healed  the  man;  but 
the  Pharisees  began  at  this  to  plot  against  Jesus'  life. 


SUBDIVISION  C.     2x  1—3: 6.— CRITICISM 

Mark's  description  of  the  opposition  Jesus  now  began  to  encounter 
reverts  to  the  scenes  of  Subdivision  b,  Peter's  house  in  Capernaum,  the 
preaching  interrupted  by  the  importunities  of  the  sick.  But  it  soon 
develops  a  new  theme,  whose  relation  to  Q  appears  in  the  sequence  of 
incidents,  the  Leper  Healed,1  Proclamation  of  Forgiveness,2  Eating 
with  Publicans  and  Sinners,3  Fasting  of  John's  Disciples,4  Jesus' 
Disciples  sons  of  the  Bridechamber,5  Rights  of  the  New  against  the 

»  1:  40-45.  2  2:  5&-10.  »  2: 15-17.  *  2:  18.  *  2:  19,  20. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY  23 

Old.1  This  series  appears  to  be  suggested  by  the  section  of  Q  on  How 
they  were  Stumbled  in  him2  already  employed  in  the  Prologue.  Mark's 
pragmatic  development  of  this  theme  not  only  carries  it  on  to  an  acuter 
stage  by  the  addition  of  two  sabbath  controversies,3  but  reflects  also 
the  later  quarrel  of  the  Church  with  the  Synagogue.  Christian  neglect 
of  the  principal  Jewish  religious  observances  of  fasts  and  sabbaths  is 
vindicated,  as  well  as  the  great  doctrinal  claim  of  the  Church  of  au- 
thority to  declare  forgiveness  of  sins  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  irrespective 
of  works  of  the  law. 

In  respect  to  religious  observances  the  sayings  on  the  new  wine  and 
new  cloth4  are  radically  sweeping.  Christianity  is  presented  as  a  new 
ferment,  which  must  determine  its  own  processes  and  cannot  be  bound 
by  traditional  procedure.  It  is  not  a  mere  reformed  Judaism,  a  patch 
on  an  old  garment.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  application  intended  by  R. 
Such  application,  however,  would  be  as  much  an  anachronism  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus  as  the  allusion  to  the  Church's  fasting  in  commemora- 
tion of  his  death.5  Adaptation  of  the  group  to  the  conditions  of  later 
apologetic  is  therefore  apparent. 

As  regards  the  defense  of  the  authority  to  declare  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  some  alteration  is  also  apparent  in  vers.  5-10.  To  the  early 
Church  the  authoritative  declaration  of  forgiveness  to  the  penitent  was 
a  distinctive  part  of  its  message.6  That  which  made  it  seem  revolu- 
tionary in  Jesus'  preaching  to  Jews  who  were  themselves  familiar 
with  Ezek.  33:  10-20  was  the  special  application  he  made  of  the  prin- 
ciple to  the  phenomena  of  the  time.  To  Jesus  "the  baptism  of  John" 
was  the  great  sign  of  the  times,7  a  sign  "from  heaven."  He  saw  in  the 
"believing"  submission  to  it  of  "the  publicans  and  harlots"  the  Great 
Repentance  prophesied  by  Malachi  as  destined  to  precede  the  great 
"day  of  Yah weh."  To  hold  that  the  publicans  and  harlots  after  this 
were  not  forgiven  would  have  been  monstrous.  But  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  saw  no  such  significance  either  in  John's  baptism  or  its  effect.8 
They  were  willing  to  admit  the  forgiveness  of  the  publicans  and  harlots 
after  their  assumption  of  the  complete  "yoke  of  the  law."  Jesus  de- 
clared "with  authority"  that  they  were  forgiven.  When  murmurs  were 
raised  by  the  adherents  of  the  Synagogue  he  appealed  to  the  visible 
evidences,  moral  and  physical,  accompanying  his  work.  Such  is  the 
bearing  of  the  great  Q  section  corresponding  to  the  present  subdivision 
of  Mark.9  Lk.  7:  36-47  adds  a  peculiarly  touching  and  convincing 
example  of  the  moral  evidence,  by  which  Jesus  proved  that  the  "wisdom 
of  God 10  is  justified  in  her  children."  But  in  the  preceding  Q  context11 
physical  and  moral  effects  are  blended,  as  in  the  scripture12  on  which 
the  paragraph  rests.  Both  were  evidences  to  Jesus  justifying  his  mes- 
sage of  "wisdom"  with  the  stamp  of  divine  approval,  confirming  his 
reading  of  "the  signs  of  the  times." 

Mark's  apologetic  shows  a  later,  crasser  development  of  the  same 
argument.  The  declaration  of  forgiveness  is  still  the  special  and 
official  Messianic  forgiveness  of  the  Great  Repentance,  and  the  declara- 
tion of  it  "with  authority"  is  still  "justified"  against  the  murmurs  of  the 
scribes  by  the  visible  effects.  But  the  moral  effects  are  now  entirely 
lost  from  view  behind  the  physical.    Instead  of  pointing  to  Him  "who 


I  2:  21,  22.  2  Mt.  11:  2-19=Lk.  7:  18-50.  '  2:  23-28;  3:  1-6. 
4  Vers.  21,  22.  6  Vers.  igr  20.  6  See  note  on  ver.  10,  and  cf.  Jn.  20:  22,  23. 
7  Mt.  21:23-32.                    «  Mt.  21:32. 

9  Mt.  11:  4-6,  20-24,  27=  Lk.  7:  22,  23;   10:  13-15,  22. 

10  I.e.,  the  saving,  redeeming  message  of   mercy  and   restoration   (cf.   Prov.   8: 
1-21;    Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:  27;  9:  17—10:  4). 

II  Mt.  U:  4-6=  Lk.  7:  22,  23.  "  Is.  35:  5;  61:  1. 


24  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

forgiveth  all  thine  iniquities,  who  healeth  all  thy  diseases,"  Jesus  now 
argues:  "I  am  the  coming  divine  Judge;  my  miraculous  power  proves 
that  I  can  forgive  sins  in  God's  name." 

In  reality  vers.  56-10  are  interjected  by  R  quite  out  of  harmony 
with  the  context.  The  paralytic  has  not  asked  forgiveness  of  sin,  nor 
even  shown  traces  of  penitence.  Not  even  do  Jesus'  amazing  claims, 
blasphemous  unless  believed,  provoke  any  reaction  from  the  scribes. 
When  at  last  the  charge  is  brought  against  him  in  14:  61-64  it  is  on  other 
and  much  less  cogent  grounds.  The  interjected  Christological  con- 
troversy of  vers.  56-10  is  therefore  certainly  redactional.  This  advance 
from  the  eschatological  note  of  the  Q  sayings  to  the  Christological  of 
the  primitive  Church1  is  one  of  the  most  conclusive  evidences  of  the 
dependence  of  R(Q).  The  Q  argument  exalts  the  message,  Mark  ex- 
alts the  Messenger. 

We  can  thus  assign  but  little  of  Subdivision  c  to  the  primitive  Petrine 
tradition,  at  least  in  its  present  context.  The  course  of  the  story  seems 
to  have  proceeded  from  the  return  to  Capernaum  and  healing  of  the 
palsied  man  to  the  call  of  Levi  and  Jesus'  withdrawal  to  the  sea- 
shore with  the  multitude  that  followed  him. 


'Forgiveness  under  Jesus'  personal  authority  (Eph.  1:7;  Col.  1:  14;  Acts  5:  31; 
13:38;  26:18). 


2:  1-4 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


25 


2  A  ND  when  he  entered  again  into  Caper- 
J\.  naum  after  some  days,  it  was   noised 

2  that  he  was  in  the  house.  And  many 
were  gathered  together,  so  that  there 
was  no  longer  room  (for  them),  no,  not 
even  about  the   door:  and  he  spake  the 

3  word  unto  them.  And  they  come, 
bringing  unto  him  a  man  sick  of  the  palsy, 

4  borne  of  four.  And  when  they  could 
not  come  nigh  unto  him  for  the  crowd, 
they  uncovered  the  roof  where  he  was: 
and  2[when  they  had  broken  it  up,] 
they  let  down  the  bed  whereon  the  sick 


1  Var.  omit  [  ]. 


Vers.  l-12=Mt. 
9:  l-8=Lk.   5: 
17-26 

(P) 


2:  1-12.  Opposition  of  the  Scribes.  Jesus  Claims  Authority  to  For- 
give Sins.  To  Mark  the  powers  of  healing,  regarded  in  his  own  time 
as  a  gift  of  the  Spirit  (16:  17,  18;  I  Cor.  12:  29),  which  had  accom- 
panied Jesus'  preaching  of  "glad  tidings"  (of  forgiveness)  "to  the 
poor,"  are  simply  a  proof  that  his  words  and  deeds  since  1:  10  are  the 
words  and  deeds  of  God,  just  as  the  words  and  deeds  of  one  "in  an 
unclean  spirit"  are  those  of  the  demon.  Jesus  thus  knew  himself  as  the 
Beloved  Son  of  God  and  Heir  of  God's  Vineyard  (12:  6,  7).  He  knew 
himself  vested  with  authority  as  the  Son  of  man,  i.e.,  the  final  judge 
of  the  world  (see  on  ver.  10  and  9:  1,  p.  108,  and  cf.  14:  12),  destined  to 
sit  on  God's  throne  with  him  (12:  36).  He  therefore  exercises  the 
clemency  of  this  exalted'  office.  For  Jesus'  own  utterances  regarding 
his  proclamation  of  forgiveness  against  the  same  opposition  see  Lk. 
7:  36-47  and  Mt.  21:  31  =Lk.  7:  29,  30  with  the  Criticism  above,  p.  23. 
Apart  from  the  interjected  argument  with  the  scribes,  vers.  56-10 
(an  RQ  expansion;  see  above,  p.  24),  this  first  incident  of  the  series 
of  five  in  Mk.  2:  1 — 3:  6  contains  simply  one  of  the  "faith"-wonder 
series  (ver.  5;  see  note  on  1:  41).  Its  graphic  traits  (vers.  1,  2,  4)  have 
been  noted  by  critics  as  suggestive  of  Petrine  tradition.  Lk.  7:  48-50, 
if  derived  from  the  same  source  as  its  preceding  context  (vers.  36-47), 
might  well  be  the  basis  of  Mark's  insertion;  but  the  converse  seems 
more  probable.  Luke's  story  is  complete  at  ver.  47.  Vers.  48-50, 
like  ver.  46  and  the  other  (highly  inappropriate)  allusions  to  the  "oint- 
ment" in  vers.  376,  386,  is  one  of  Luke's  editorial  embellishments  drawn 
from  Mark.    Our  evangelist  rests  on  Lk.  7:  47. 

Ver.  4.  Gr.,  Unroofed  the  roof  .  .  ♦  dug  it  up.  All  attempts  to  depict 
the  scene  consistently  with  the  small  one-storied,  flat-roofed  oriental 
house,  and  the  circumstances  which  must  here  be  presupposed,  are 
fruitless.1  Some  imagine  an  awning  (!)  projecting  over  the  door, 
beneath  which  Jesus  stood.  Luke  (5:  19)  substitutes  "tiles."  Modern 
guessing  and  ancient  are  probably  of  about  equal  value  as  respects 
detail. 


1  Wellhausen  (Ev.  Marci,  p.  16)  explains  the  clause  "unroofed  the  roof"  as  a 
misrendering  of  an  original  Aramaic,  meaning  "brought  him  up  to  the  roof."  It  ia 
noteworthy  in  view  of  this  that  the  textual  evidence  for  omitting  "when  they 
had  dug  It  up"  is  very  strong. 


26 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STOR1 


2:5-10 


5  of  the  palsy  lay.  And  Jesus  seeing 
their  faith  saith  unto  the  sick  of  the 
palsy,  1Son,  thy  sins  2are  forgiven. 

6  But  there  were  certain  of  the  scribes 
sitting    there,     and    reasoning     in     their 

7  hearts,  Why  doth  this  man  thus  speak? 
he    blasphemeth:    who  can    forgive     sins 

8  but  one,  (even)  God?  And  straightway 
Jesus,  perceiving  in  his  spirit  that  they 
so  reasoned  within  themselves,  saith 
unto  them,  Why  reason  ye  these   things 

9  in  your  hearts?  Whether  is  easier,  to 
say  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  Thy  sins  are 
forgiven;  or  to  say,   Arise,  and   take  up 

10  thy   bed,   and   walk?     But  that    ye  may 
know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  3power  on 


1  Gr.  Child. 


2  Var.  have  been. 


3  Or,  authority. 


R  (Q--K) 
(Lk.  7:  36-47) 

Lk.  7:  48-50 


Dan.  7:  13,  14 


Vers.  56-10.  The  defense  against  the  scribes  of  the  right  of  Jesus 
as  "the  Son  of  man"  to  forgive  sins  interrupts  the  connection  of  vers. 
l-5a  with  vers.  11,  12,  repeating  the  clause  before  the  break.  Vers. 
l-5a  do  not  lead  up  to  5b,  nor  are  the  wholly  friendly  sentiments 
expressed  in  ver.  12  natural  after  ver.  10.  Mark  depicts  the  opposition 
implied  in  Q  after  the  type  of  the  theological  disputes  of  Church  vs. 
Synagogue  in  his  own  time.    See  on  ver.  10. 

Ver.  5.  Son  (Gr.,  "child").  This  term  in  address  is  not  found  else- 
where in  Mark.  It  characterizes  the  Wisdom  literature  and  the  Special 
Source  of  Luke,  and  is  unsuitable  in  Jesus'  mouth  except  as  he  is  con- 
ceived as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  divine  Wisdom. 

Ver.  9.  "Whether  is  easier.  With  Mark  it  is  a  question  of  "power." 
In  Q  also  Jesus  appeals  to  the  "mighty  works"  in  proof  of  the  message, 
connecting  healing  and  forgiveness  as  in  Ps.  103:  3.  But  his  attitude 
toward  them  is  objective.  God  sends  them.  He  refuses  to  "tempt 
the  Lord"  by  calling  for  them  (Q,  Mt.  4:  3-7;  12:  39=Lk.  4:  3,4,  9-12; 
11:  29.    See  Criticism  above,  p.  23. 

Ver.  10.  The  Son  of  man.  Philological  considerations  make  it 
doubtful  if  the  Aramaic  spoken  by  Jesus  admitted  the  use  of  this 
term  as  a  title.  If  it  could  be  used  in  any  other  sense  than  "the  human 
being"  it  was  only  by  virtue  of  reference  to  Dan.  7:  13, 14,  and  to  later 
apocalyptic  passages  based  on  this,  wherein  the  original  general  sense 
(a  being  in  human  form  as  against  the  bestial  forms  representing 
the  earthly  kingdoms  of  vers.  4-12)  had  become  specific.  It  meant, 
therefore,  to  the  contemporaries  of  Mark  "the  heavenly  Lord  of  ever- 
lasting dominion  referred  to  by  Daniel."  To  Mark  personally  it  means 
this  (8:  38;  13:  26;  14:  62),  but  is  also  employed  as  the  specially  ap- 
propriate title  where  reference  is  made  to  the  humiliation  which  is 
the  condition  of  Christ's  exaltation  (8:  31,  38;  9:  9,  12,  31;  10:  33,  45; 
14:  21,  41).  The  instance  of  2:  28,  and  perhaps  the  present,  are  the 
only  uses  in  Mark  which  possibly  represent  a  third  connotation,  viz, 
the  representative  of  humanity,  as  in  Ps.  8:  5-7;  Heb.  2:  5-9;  Mt. 
8:20  =  Lk.  9:58.  To  place  the  title  in  Jesus'  mouth  as  applying  to 
himself  at  this  point  of  the  story  is  a  manifest  anachronism.     But 


2tU-l3         THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY  27 


earth    to    forgive    sins    (he   saith    to   the 

11  sick  of  the  palsy),  I  say  unto  thee, 
Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy 

12  house.  And  he  arose,  and  straightway 
took  up  the  bed,  and  went  forth  before 
them  all;  insomuch  that  they  were  all 
amazed,  and  glorified  God,  saying,  We 
never  saw  it  on  this  fashion. 

13  And  he  went  forth  again  by  the  sea 
side;  and  all  the  multitude  resorted  unto 


Vers.l3-17=Mt. 

9:9-13= 

Lk.  5:27-32 

P 


Mark  no  more  thinks  of  asking  what  effect  such  a  declaration  must 
have  had  on  the  bystanders  than  in  the  case  of  the  declarations  of  the 
"spirits,"  "Thou  art  the  Christ." 

Hath  power  (i.e.,  delegated  power;  cf.  marg.,  "authority")  to  for- 
give sins.  The  "authority  to  forgive  sins"  here  attributed  to  Jesus 
personally  is  an  essential  feature  in  the  equipment  of  his  representa- 
tives in  Jn.  20:  23  (cf.  Mt.  16:  19;  18:  18).  In  a  sense  which  transcended 
Jewish  beliefs  the  early  Church  professed  in  its  earliest  formula  of 
confession  to  "believe  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  and  still  authorizes 
its  ministers  to  declare  "with  authority"  to  the  people,  "they  being 
duly  penitent,  the  absolution  and  remission  of  their  sins."  As  implied 
in  the  narrative  of  Mark,  this  assumption  was  obnoxious  to  Judaism ; 
necessarily  so  when  advanced,  as  here,  as  the  personal  prerogative  of 
Jesus,  but  also  in  the  earlier  sense  of  Lk.  7:  47;  Mt.  21:  31  and  kindred 
passages.  Jesus'  "glad  tidings  to  the  poor"  was  obnoxious  to  the 
scribes,  because  he  assured  penitent  publicans  and  sinners  that  their 
sins  were  forgiven  before  they  had  achieved  any  merit  by  works  of  the 
law. l  His  special  assurance  rested  on  the  conviction  that  the  baptism 
of  John,  which  had  brought  about  the  promised  Great  Repentance, 
was  "from  heaven"  (Mt.  21:  23-32). 

Vers.  11,  12  ignore  vers.  56-10.  The  astounding  claim  of  ver.  10 
remains  as  if  unspoken;  the  scribes  vanish.  The  remainder  (vers.  l-5a, 
11,  12)  is  seen  to  connect  with  1:  14-39  in  all  its  points  of  emphasis 
(Jesus  intent  on  "preaching  the  word,"  ver.  2;  the  importunity  of  the 
seekers  for  physical  healing,  ver.  4;  the  "faith,"  ver.  5;  so  touchingly 
evinced  as  to  overcome  his  reluctance,  ver.  11  [cf.  Mt.  15:28];  the 
spread  of  his  fame,  ver.  12).  The  connection  is  much  closer  still  if 
the  alien  paragraph  1 :  40-45  be  disregarded. 

Vers.  13-17.  Association  with  Publicans  and  Sinners.  Besides  a 
general  jealousy  of  the  work  wherein  the  sick  were  healed,  "lepers 
were  cleansed  and  glad  tidings  proclaimed  to  the  poor,"  the  scribes 
brought  against  Jesus  the  charge  of  "eating  and  drinking  with  publi- 
cans and  sinners"  (Q,  Mt.  11:5,  19  =  Lk.  7:22,  34).  This  theme  is 
now  illustrated  by  the  specific  instance  of  "Levi  the  son  of  Alphseus," 
who  in  our  first  canonical  Gospel  is  identified  with  the  Apostle  Matthew 
(3:  18  =  Mt.  10:  8),  though  Mark  gives  no  indication  of  so  understand- 
ing the  matter.  The  principal  "western"  text  has  "James  the  son  of 
Alphaeus"  here,  but  "Levi  the  son  of  Alphgeus"  in  the  Lukan  parallel. 
"Levi"  reappears  in  the  Ev.  Petri.    Lk.  19:  1-10  presents  an  anecdote 


1  Rabbinic    doctrine    maintained,  "There    is   no  forgiveness  without    requital." 
See  Weber,   AUsynagogale   Tfieologie,  pp.  267-300,  and  R.  H.  Charles,   Apoc.   of 


Baruch,  pp.  lxxxiiff 


28 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        2s  14-16 


14  him,  and  he  taught  them.  And  as  he 
passed  by,  he  saw  ^evi  the  (son)  of  Alphaeus 
sitting  at  the  place  of  toll,  and  he  saith 
unto  him,  Follow  me.     And  he  arose  and 

15  followed  him.  And  it  came  to  pass, 
that  he  was  sitting  at  meat  in  his  house, 
and  many  publicans  and  sinners  sat  down 
with  Jesus  and  his  disciples ;  for  there  were 

16  many,  2and  they  followed  him.  And  the 
scribes  3of  the  Pharisees,  when  they  saw 
that  he  was  eating  with  the  sinners  and 
publicans,    said    unto    his    disciples,    4He 


1  Var.  James;  but  Levi  the  son  of  Alpheus  in  Lk.  5:  27. 

2  Or,  And  there  folloived  him  also  .  .  .  And  when  they  saw 

3  Var.  and  the  Pharisees. 

*  Or,  (  How  is  it)  that  he  ealeth  .  ,  .  sinners  f 


R(Q) 
(Mt.   11:  19=Lk. 
7:  34;  cf.  Lk. 
19:  1-10) 


elsewhere  unknown  of  a  feast  given  by  a  publican  to  Jesus  in  his 
house.  This,  however,  is  located  at  Jericho,  and  attaches  to  the  name 
Zaccheeus. 

Ver.  13.  For  the  scene  cf.  1:  16.  The  calling  of  disciples  begun  in 
1:  16-20  still  continues.  In  3:  13-19  it  develops  into  a  formal  selec- 
tion of  twelve  individuals.    See  note  ibid. 

Ver.  14.  The  place  of  toll.  Perhaps  on  the  great  trade  route  to 
Damascus,  which  then  as  now  passed  near  Capernaum,  crossing  at 
the  bridge  over  Jordan  from  the  tetrarchy  of  Antipas  to  that  of  Philip. 
Levi  (unlike  Zacchaeus)  was  an  agent,  not  of  the  Emperor,  but  of 
Antipas;  but  he  perhaps  shared  the  odium  which  attached  to  tax- 
gatherers  as  a  class  as  hirelings  of  the  alien  oppressor  against  their  own 
people. 

Ver.  15.  He  was  sitting  (Gr.,  "reclining,"  after  the  Roman  custom) 
at  meat  in  his  house.  An  example  of  the  ambiguity  constantly  arising 
from  the  Semitic  habit  of  repeating  the  personal  pronoun.  Many 
modern  authorities  think  Mark  means  Jesus'  house,  as  might  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  Levi  follows  Jesus,  not  conversely ;  and  this 
may  account  for  the  explanatory  addition,  "for  there  were  many  that 
(Gr.,  "and  they")  followed  him."  But  Luke  takes  it  as  Levi's  house, 
and  this  agrees  better  with  the  context  as  a  whole.  Vers.  15-17  are 
loosely  attached,  aiming  to  introduce  the  complaint  of  ver.  16  and 
reply,  ver.  17.  Ver.  15  seems  to  be  suggested  by  the  story  of  Zac- 
chaeus, ver.  16  by  Q  (Mt.  11:  19  =  Lk.  7:  34),  while  ver.  17  is  a  saying 
not  otherwise  known. 

Sinners.  Those  who  today  might  be  called  the  "unchurched";  some, 
literally,  outcasts  from  the  synagogue,  some  merely  unable  or  unwilling 
to  submit  to  the  yoke  of  the  law.  Galilee  was  notorious  for  laxity 
(Mt.  4:  15,  16),  and  Capernaum  was  one  of  its  commercial  centers. 
Disciples.  Only  five  have  been  mentioned  (1:16-20;  2:14),  but  a 
larger  group  seems  to  be  meant,  as  in  3:  13;  4:  10.  The  clause  for 
there  were  many,  etc.,  which  is  rightly  rendered  in  R.  V.,  looks  like 
an  editorial  attempt  to  meet  the  query  naturally  suggested  by  the 
word. 

Ver.  16.  Scribes  of  the  Pharisees.  If  the  reading  be  authentic  (see 
var.),  a  difficult  phrase.    We  have  no  reference  to  "scribes  of  the  Sad- 


2;  17-20 


THE  BEGINNING  OE  THE  MINISTRY 


29 


eateth   *[and  drinketh]  with  publicans  and 

17  sinners.  And  when  Jesus  heard  it, 
he  saith  unto  them,  They  that  are  whole 
have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that 
are  sick:  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous, 
but  sinners. 

18  And  John's  disciples  and  the  Pharisees 
were  fasting:  and  they  come  and  say  unto 
him,  Why  do  John's  disciples  and  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Pharisees  fast,  but  thy  dis- 

19  ciples  fast  not?  And  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
Can  the  sons  of  the  bride-chamber  fast, 
while      the    bridegroom    is     with     them? 

2[as  long  as  they  have  the  bride- 

20  groom  with  them,  they  cannot  fast].  But 
the  days  will  come,  when  the  bridegroom 


1  Var.  omit  and  drinketh. 


2  Var.  omit  [  ]. 


(X) 


Vers.l8-20=Mt. 
9:  14,  15=L,k. 
5:33-35 

R(Q) 

(Mt.  11:  17-19  = 

Lk.  7:  32-34) 


ducees."  But  cf.  3:  22.  Ver.  17  answers  an  objection  to  Jesus'  "call- 
ing" sinners  to  a  new  life  (ver.  14),  but  not  the  objection  of  vers.  15,  16 
(eating  with  them).  The  latter  is  a  parallel  to  Q  (Mt.  11:  19  =  Lk.  7: 
34).    Has  R  modified  the  original  story  into  conformity  with  Q? 

Vers.  18-22.  Disregard  of  Religious  Observances.  The  connection 
of  this  incident  with  the  foregoing  is  purely  topical.  No  time  relation 
exists.  Q,  however,  furnishes  a  very  manifest  thread  of  connection 
in  the  "stumbling"  at  Jesus,  because,  unlike  the  Baptist,  he  leads  a 
non-ascetic  life,  and  his  message  is  like  wedding  music  (Mt.  11:  17-19 
=  Lk.  7:  32-34),  to  the  latter's  funereal  strains.  Whether  Mark  had  an 
independent  tradition  of  the  saying  (ver.  19a),  or  is  merely  developing 
Q  (Mt.  ll:17-19=Lk.  7:32-34)  in  the  whole  paragraph  is  indeter- 
minable. 

Ver.  18.  They  (i.e.,  people)  come.  The  habitual  Markan  use  of  the 
indefinite  personal  pronoun  (cf.  1:30;  2:3;  3:2).  Matthew  (9:14) 
takes  it  to  mean  John's  disciples;  cf.  the  coming  of  John's  disciples  in 
Q  (Mt.  ll:2  =  Lk.  7:19). 

Ver.  19.  Sons  of  the  bride-chamber,  i.e.,  wedding  guests;  excused 
by  Jewish  practice  from  the  semi-weekly  fasts.  Jesus  applies  the 
same  principle  to  those  who  have  received  the  invitation  to  the  "mar- 
riage supper"  (Q,  Mt.  22:  1-14  =  Lk.  14:15-24).  Those  who  have 
just  heard  the  "glad  tidings"  are  not  disposed  to  fast  (cf.  Q,  Mt.  11: 
17=Lk.  7:  32).  Religious  forms  cannot  be  more  than  "dead"  forms, 
unless  adopted  as  the  congenial  expression  of  a  spontaneous  feel- 
ing. R,  in  vers.  196,  20,  allegorizes  into  a  prediction  of  Jesus'  death 
and  of  the  commemoration  of  it  on  the  Friday  fast.  Jn.  3:  29  turns 
the  saying  into  a  disclaimer  of  Messiahship  on  the  Baptist's  part  in 
Jesus'  favor.  He  whose  followers  rejoice  is  the  bridegroom = the 
Messiah. 

Ver.  20.  Instead  of  the  fundamental  contrast  of  Q  (Mt.  11:  17-19  = 
Lk.  7:  32-34;  cf.  Mt.  6:  16-18)  between  the  use  of  fasting  as  an  opus 
operatum,  and  fasting  as  a  forth-putting  of  the  soul  toward  God, 
R  introduces  a  contrast  of  time.     No  fasts  while  Jesus  is  alive;  fasting 


30 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


2: 21-23 


shall  be  taken  away  from  them,  and  then 

21  will  they  fast  in  that  day.  No  man 
seweth  a  piece  of  undressed  cloth  on  an  old 
garment:  else  that  which  should  fill  it  up 
taketh  from  it,  the  new  from  the  old,  and 

22  a  worse  rent  is  made.  And  no  man 
putteth  new  wine  into  old  Hvine-skins: 
else  the  wine  will  burst  the  skins,  and  the 
wine  perisheth,  and  the  skins:  but  (they 
put)  new  wine  into  fresh  wine-skins. 

23  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  was  going 
on  the  sabbath  day  through  the  cornfields; 
and  his  disciples  2began,  as  they  went,  to 

1  That  is,  skins  used  as  bottles. 

2  Gr.  began  to  make  a  way  plucking. 


Vers.     21,     22= 
Mt.  9:  16,    17 
=Lk.  5:  36-38 
(X) 


(X) 


Vers.33-28=Mt. 
12:l-8=L,k. 
6:1-5 

(X) 


for  the  subsequent  time  (cf.  Jn.  3:  29).  That  day.  The  singular  is 
perhaps  chosen  for  still  closer  correspondence  with  Church  observance, 
which  made  Friday  a  fast  (Didache,  viii).  R  has  no  scruples  about 
anachronisms.    See  on  2:  10. 

Vers.  21,  22.  Parables  of  the  Patch  and  the  "Wine-skins.  This  pair 
of  proverbial  sayings  (parables?)  might  well  be  authentic,  though  not 
found  in  Q.  They  well  express  the  sweeping  radicalism  of  this  Gospel 
against  Jewish  observances  (cf.  7:3-7,  15;  10:1-12,  20,  21;  12:33); 
but  when  applied,  as  here,  to  Jesus'  conduct  generally,  as  compared 
with  the  Pharisees  and  disciples  of  John,  they  go  beyond  the  historical 
probability  (cf.  Rom.  15:  8).  To  Mark  and  his  readers  they  answer 
the  question,  Why  do  not  Christians  retain  the  Jewish  observances? 
The  answer  given  is,  Christians  are  a  different  race,  filled  with  a  new 
spirit,  and  require  to  form  their  own.  Their  original  application  is 
more  doubtful. 

Vers.  23-28;  3:  1-6.  Sabbatarianism  Repudiated.  Our  evangelist 
continues  his  polemic  against  Jewish  observances  by  attaching,  with- 
out chronological  relation,  two  incidents  which  justify,  negatively  and 
positively,  Christian  disregard  of  the  sabbath  (cf.  Rom.  14:5;  Col. 
2:  16).  Whence  they  are  derived  is  not  clear;  for  the  thread  of  con- 
nection with  Q  breaks  off  after  ver.  19.  Luke,  however,  has  additional 
anti-sabbatarian  material  (Lk.  13:  10-17),  including  after  Lk.  6: 4 
to  the  ft  text  the  significant  story  of  the  man  working  on  the  sabbath, 
to  whom  "Jesus  said,  Man,  blessed  art  thou  if  thou  knowest  what  thou 
art  doing,  but  if  not,  thou  art  accurst  and  a  transgressor  of  the  law." 
Luke  has  also  an  independent  version  of  3:  1-6  (Lk.  14:  1-6),  whose 
discourse  element  is  incorporated  also  by  Matthew  (Mt.  12:  ll  =  Lk. 
14:  5).  If  Mark  derives  3:  1-6  from  Qlk,  we  cannot  determine  its 
original  connection;  but  both  Matthew  and  Luke  (14:  1-6)  place  it 
later.  Another  independent  version  of  this  story  appeared  in  Ev. 
Hebr.1 

Ver.  23.  As  they  went.  The  Greek  will  not  bear  this  rendering,  nor 
even  that  of  the  R.  V.  margin.    Render:  "to  make  a  road  by  pluck- 


1  Preuschen  Antileg.,  fragt.  8. 


2t  24-27         THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


31 


24  pluck  the  ears  of  corn.  And  the  Phari- 
sees said  unto  him,  Behold,  why  do 
they  on  the  sabbath   day   that   which   is 

25  not  lawful?  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Did  ye  never  read  what  David  did,  when 
he   had   need,  and    was    an   hungred,  he, 

26  and  they  that  were  with  him?  How  he 
entered  into  the  house  of  God  J[when 
Abiathar  was  high  priest,]  and  did  eat 
the  shewbread,  which  it  is  not  lawful  to 
eat  save  for  the  priests,  and  gave  also 
to    them    that  were   with   him  ? 

27  2And  he  said  unto  them,  The  sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  sab- 


1  Var.  omit  [  J. 

2  Var.  But  I  say  unto  you,  The  Son  . 


,  omitting  ver.  27. 


R 
Mt.  12:  8 


ing."  The  objection  that  this  translation,  "besides  making  Jesus' 
answer  quite  unintelligible,  presents  an  absurd  way  of  making  a  road" 
(Gould),  has  no  application,  because  Mark  knows  the  Pharisees'  accu- 
sation was  one  of  their  casuistical  absurdities,  and  only  fails  to  see  the 
real  point  of  the  objection.  This  was,  as  Luke  perceives  ("rubbing  it 
in  their  hands"),  the  characteristic  piece  of  Sabbatarian  casuistry 
that  this  was  "a  kind  of  threshing."  Jesus'  defense  by  the  example  of 
"what  David  did  when  he  was  an  hungred"  shows  that  Luke  is  right 
in  making  the  point  of  opposition  lie  against  something  the  dis- 
ciples were  doing  to  satisfy  their  hunger.  But  the  law  expressly 
allowed  the  appropriation  (Lev.  19:  9,  10).  The  puzzle  was  to  find 
what  labor  was  done;  for  that  alone  could  account  for  the  charge 
of  violating  the  sabbath.  "Making  a  road"  is  not  in  itself  a  more 
unreasonable  guess  than  "threshing."  Only  close  scrutiny  of  the 
context,  or  independent  information,  could  show  that  the  latter  was 
really  meant. 

Ver.  26.  Even  approach  to  the  Holy  Place  was  sacrilege  punishable 
with  death  for  all  but  the  priests  according  to  Mosaic  law.  To  eat  the 
shewbread  far  more  so.  The  inconsistency  of  the  narratives  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel  with  the  priestly  law  (really  due  to  the  much  later 
development  of  the  latter)  had  been  observed,  but  was  explained  as 
due  to  exceptional  circumstances.  The  present  was  an  extreme  case. 
"When  Abiathar  was  high  priest,  A  slip  for  "Ahimelech";  see  I  Sam. 
21 :  6,  and  note  var. 

Vers.  27,  28  seem  to  be  later  attachments.  Ver.  27  is  lacking  in 
both  Matthew  and  Luke  and  the  /3  text  of  Mark,  and  was  a  common- 
place of  rabbinic  doctrine.1  Its  sense  is:  The  welfare  of  the  observer 
must  determine  the  application  of  observances ;  for  these  exist  for  the 
sake  of  those  to  whom  they  are  given  (Dt.  6:  24;  10:  13),  and  not  con- 
versely. Ver.  28  is  doubtless  an  authentic  element  of  our  Mark,  but 
corresponds  neither  with  the  defense  of  vers.  25,  26,  nor  with  Jesus' 
general  attitude.    It  has  the  same  anachronistic  use  of  the  messianic 


1  Jonia,  fol.  So. 


32 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY     2:  28—3:  5 


28  bath:  so  that  the  Son  of  man  is  lord  even 
of  the  sabbath. 

3  And  he  entered  again  into  *[the]  syna- 
gogue; and  there  was  a  man  there  which  had 

2  his  hand  withered.  And  they  watched  him, 
whether  he  would  heal  him  on  the  sabbath 

3  day;  that  they  might  accuse  him.  And  he 
saith  unto   the   man  that  had   his   hand 

4  withered,  2Stand  forth.  And  he  saith 
unto  them,  Is  it  lawful  on  the  sabbath  day 
to  do  good,  or  to  do  harm?  to  save  a  life, 
or   to   kill?     But   they   held   their  peace. 

5  And  when  he  had  looked  round  about  on 
them  with  anger,  being  grieved  at  the 
hardening  of  their  heart,  he  saith  unto  the 
man,  Stretch  forth  thy  hand.  And  he 
stretched  it  forth:  and  his  hand  was  re- 


1  Var.  a  synagogue. 


2  Gr.  Arise  into  the  midst. 


Vers.  l-6=Mt. 
12:fr-14=Lk. 
6:6-ll;cf.  Lk. 
14:1-6 
R  (Qi«) 
(Mt.  12:  ll=Lk. 
14:5) 


title  Son  of  man,  as  ver.  10,  and  was  doubtless  appended  by  the  same 
hand.  Even  of  the  sabbath,  or  "of  the  sabbath  also."  Fasting  and 
sabbath-keeping1  are  both  made  dependent  on  the  will  of  Christ. 

3 :  1-6.  Healing  on  the  Sabbath.  The  preceding  instance  had  shown 
that  human  need,  and  not  the  letter  of  Scripture,  determines  what  one 
may  do.  A  second  is  now  added,  still  without  chronological  connc- 
tion,  to  show  that  it  determines  what  one  must  do  in  cases  of  conflict. 

Ver.  1.  A  synagogue.  Lk.  14:  1-6  is  shown  by  the  challenge  of 
Jesus  "to  the  lawyers  and  Pharisees"  and  the  instance  of  the  animal 
fallen  into  the  pit  (Lk.  14:  5  =  Mt.  12:  11)  to  be  the  same  incident, 
though  represented  as  taking  place  "when  he  had  gone  into  the  house 
of  one  of  the  rulers  of  the  Pharisees  on  a  sabbath  to  eat  bread,"2  and 
as  a  case  not  of  withering  but  of  "dropsy."  Lk.  14:  1-6  is  separated 
from  its  companion,  Lk.  13:  10-17  (where  we  have  the  scene  of  Mk. 
3:  1-6),  and  connected  by  our  third  evangelist  with  Lk.  14:  7ff.,  where 
the  invitation  to  dinner  is  suggested  by  the  discourse  (vers.  7-11, 
12-14).  Jerome  tells  us  that  Ev.  Hebr.  also  contained  this  story,  call- 
ing the  man  a  stone-mason  and  representing  him  as  appealing  to  Jesus, 
"I  was  a  stone-mason  earning  subsistence  with  my  hands.  I  pray 
thee,  Jesus,  to  restore  my  health,  that  I  may  not  basely  beg  my  food.  ' 

Ver.  1.  A  man  which  had  his  hand  withered  (Lk.  14:  2,  "a  man  that 
had  the  dropsy").  The  discrepancy  may  be  due  to  variant  renderings 
of  the  Aramaic  term  for  the  ailment. 

Ver.  2.  And  they  watched  him  (cf.  Lk.  13:  14). 

Ver.  4.  An  appeal  to  the  higher  law,  as  in  10:  1-10.  Humanity 
commands  to  help;  the  written  ordinance  says,  Refrain,  even  at  the 
expense  of  life.  Which  has  best  right  to  be  considered  the  command 
of  God?  Q  adds  at  this  point  the  example  of  humanity  shown  to 
animals  (Mt.  12:  ll=Lk.  14:  5). 


1  Cf .  the  combination  of  these  two  religious  practices  in  Oxyrh.  Logia,  Log.  II. 

2  Luke   draws   this   inference  from  the  contents  of   the  succeeding   paragraphs, 
vers.  8-11,  126-14,  156-24. 


3»6 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 


33 


6  stored.  And     the    Pharisees   went 

out,  and  straightway  with  the  Herodians 
took  counsel  against  him,  how  they  might 
destroy  him. 


Ver.  6.  R  anticipates  the  outcome  of  the  conflict,  as  in  ver.  20. 
Cf.  the  more  moderate  statements  of  Lk.  13:  17;  14:  6.  Pharisees  .  .  . 
Herodians.  So  in  8:  15  and  12:  13.  Mark  conceives  the  plots  against 
Jesus'  life  to  have  already  begun  in  Galilee  through  the  influence  of  the 
local  Pharisees  at  the  court  of  Antipas  (cf.  6:  14-16).  This  can  hardly 
be  correct.  Jesus'  death  was  compassed  by  the  priests  in  complicity 
with  the  Roman  court  at  Jerusalem.  The  Pharisees  need  not  have 
even  then  had  a  direct  part  in  the  matter. 


PART  I 
DIVISION  II.    3:7—6:13 

THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 
STRUCTURE 

The  fundamental  idea  of  this  Division,  which  opens  after 
the  note  of  hostility  has  been  sounded  in  3:  6,  is  the  forma- 
tion of  a  "brotherhood"  of  the  followers  of  Christ  in  the 
midst  of  the  unbelieving,  callous,  or  hostile  environment  of 
Judaism. 

R  conceives  this  brotherhood  on  the  model  of  a  Christian 
church  endowed  with  its  two  functions  of  preaching  and 
healing.  At  its  nucleus  are  the  Twelve.  The  choice  of 
these  from  the  multitude  "to  be  with  him,  and  that  he 
might  send  them  forth  to  preach  and  to  heal, "  marks  the 
beginning  of  the  Division;  their  actual  sending  forth  to  the 
task  marks  its  close.  Besides  these  a  penumbra  of  others 
is  dimly  discerned,  called  out  from  the  multitude  before  the 
choice  of  the  Twelve  from  among  them,1  coming  to  Jesus 
"with  the  Twelve"  for  further  light  after  the  parables.2 

Within  the  general  framework  of  the  Choosing  and  the 
Mission  of  the  Twelve,  the  material  of  Division  II  readily 
falls  into  three  subdivisions,  concerned  respectively  with 
(a)  The  Formation  of  the  Brotherhood,  3:20-35;  (6)  Their 
Indoctrination  in  the  Mystery  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
4:  1-34;  (c)  Their  Discipline  in  the  Wonder-working  of 
Faith,  4:35— 6:6. 

The  general  course  of  the  primitive  Petrine  tradition  is 
most  easily  recognizable  in  Subdivision  c,  where  we  are  once 
more  face  to  face  with  the  familiar  scenes  on  the  lake,  in  the 
streets  and  among  the  people  of  Capernaum,  surrounded 
by  the  same  importunate  throngs  as  in  1 :  29-33 ;  2 :  1-4. 
The  same  note  of  wonder-working  faith  already  struck  in 
2:  5  is  now  dominant,  the  keynote  of  the  group.  Two 
paragraphs  are  indeed  open  to  criticism,3  5:  1-20  for  its 
departure  from  the  theme  of  "faith"  to  introduce  a  mere 
development  of  R's  theory  of  the  demons'  recognition  of 
Christ,  and  the  command  which  he  exerted  over  them,  and 


1  3:  13.  2  4:  10.  3  See  Criticism.  Subdivision  c. 

34 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  35 

6: 1-6  for  its  change  of  viewpoint  from  that  of  the  teacher 
to  that  of  the  anti-Jewish  apologist.  But  apart  from  these 
and  certain  minor  alterations1  we  have  no  occasion  to  ques- 
tion the  derivation  of  the  group  as  a  whole  from  P.  The 
mere  fact  that  it  delights  in  miracle  is  no  evidence  against 
its  primitive  character,  as  we  may  learn  from  the  miracles 
related  by  an  actual  companion  of  Paul  in  the  "Travel- 
document"  of  Acts,  including  as  it  does  the  report,  by  an 
eye-witness  of  the  event,  of  a  supposed  raising  from  the 
dead.2 

b.  The  chief  reason  which  might  be  urged  for  including 
also  the  group  of  Parables  of  the  Kingdom  in  the  P  tradition 
is  the  negative  one  that  their  original  adaptation  was  not 
that  of  the  present  setting.  Nowhere  can  we  point  to 
more  unmistakable  traces  of  editorial  intercalation  than  in 
4: 11,  12,3  where  the  Pauline  theodicy  of  the  "hardening  of 
Israel"  is  applied  in  the  interest  of  an  anti- Jewish  apologetic. 
The  object  of  Jesus'  preaching  in  parables,  R  declares,  was 
to  veil  the  mystery  of  the  Kingdom  from  the  "outsiders," 
while  he  revealed  it  to  his  circle  of  intimates.  This  reflects 
the  general  bearing  of  the  Division  as  now  arranged,  but 
has  no  support  in  the  parables  themselves,  nor  even  in  the 
appended  interpretation,4  so  soon  as  we  remove  the  elements 
which  have  a  basis  in  Q,  i.e.,  vers.  10, 11,  21-25.5  The  inter- 
pretation itself  is  designed  to  follow  the  whole  group  of  para- 
bles,8 and  while  certainly  redactional  in  character  has  none 
of  R's  interest  of  anti-Jewish  apologetic,  but  merely  applies 
the  parable  of  the  Sower  to  hearers  of  various  sorts  in  the 
interest  of  edification. 

It  is  apparent,  then,  that  the  group  of  Parables  of  the 
Kingdom — or  at  least  a  group — was  found  by  R  already 
framed  in  some  sort  of  editorial  adaptation,  and  was  turned 
by  him  to  the  account  of  his  apologetic  theory.  It  must 
also  be  recognized  that  the  scene  depicted  in  4:  1  is  one  of 
the  most  dramatic  and  lifelike  in  the  whole  sphere  of  gospel 
tradition.  But  this  hardly  suffices  to  warrant  a  classifica- 
tion of  the  group  of  parables  with  the  P  tradition,  at  least 
at  this  point.  The  scene  of  4: 1  might  equally  well  have 
stood  alone,  or  as  an  introduction  to  the  Miracle  of  the 
Loaves,7  and  the  story  of  P  proceeded  as  in  Mt.  8:  18-27. 
It  is  entirely  supposable  that  the  Petrine  tradition  gave  no 
such  account  of  the  nature  of  Jesus'  message  as  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  which  Matthew  and  Luke  coincidently  intro- 


1  See  notes.  2  Acts  20:  9-12.  3  See  Criticism,  Subdivision  b. 

*  4:  10-20.  &  See  Criticism.  8  Cf.  vers.  10,  13.  7  8:  1-9. 


36  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

duce  at  this  point,  and  which  affords  in  substance  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  "easy  yoke"  which  Jesus  offered  to  the  "people 
of  the  land"  in  place  of  the  grievous  burden  imposed  by  the 
scribes.  The  omission  may  seem  strange.  And  yet  even 
our  canonical  evangelist,  who  also  omits  it,  has  no  idea  of 
confining  himself  to  a  partial  gospel.  Just  as  Luke  systemat- 
ically cancels  mere  comparison  of  Christian  with  Jewish 
ethics,  reducing  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  its  positive 
content,  so  R  stands  still  nearer  to  the  Johannine  principle 
that  the  work  of  God  is  to  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath 
sent,  and  the  one  new  commandment  a  sufficient  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.1  To  R  Jesus'  ethical  teaching  goes  with- 
out saying.  The  reader  is  expected  to  assume  that  on  the 
score  of  ordinary  morality  Jesus  taught  what  the  Church 
teaches.  There  is  for  him  indeed  a  distinctively  Christian 
requirement;  but  this,  as  we  shall  see,  is  reserved  for  special 
inculcation  in  Division  IV,  in  connection  with  the  revelation 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Cross.  Meantime  the  main  message, 
as  R  conceives  it,  is  Jesus'  own  personality,  and  the  escha- 
tology  which  it  implies,  as  in  I  Thess.  1:  10  and  Acts  17:  31. 
This  constitutes  "the  mystery  of  the  kingdom."  If  P  con- 
tained more  at  this  point  of  the  story,  R  has  left  no  trace 
of  it.  We  must  regard  it  then  as  distinctive  of  this  type  of 
gospel  that  it  does  not  so  much  concern  itself  with  the 
moral  precepts  as  with  the  personality  of  Jesus. 

a.  This  subdivision,  which  culminates  with  the  saying, 
"Whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God,  the  same  is  my  brother 
and  sister  and  mother,"  is  manifestly  so  constructed  as  to 
subserve  the  general  plan  of  the  Division.  The  saying 
itself  is  found  independently  in  Qlk2,  and  it  is  conceivable 
that  R  may  have  derived  it  from  the  Lukan  source.  It 
is  at  all  events  very  elaborately  introduced  by  a  descriptive 
setting,3  which  aims  to  make  its  real  bearing  as  unmis- 
takable as  possible.  Jesus  applied  this  saying  to  his  dis- 
ciples and  followers.  He  definitely  cast  in  his  lot  with 
them,  and  not  with  his  kindred  after  the  flesh.  The  divine 
"mystery"  was  "for  him  and  the  children  of  his  house- 
hold"; but  these  are  a  spiritual  connection,  not  the  fleshly.4 
This  paragraph  and  6:  1-6  are  the  only  ones  of  Mark's 
Gospel  which  make  mention  of  Jesus'  kindred.  In  both 
they  appear  simply  as  examples  of  the  unbelief  of  "his 
own."  In  both  cases  both  the  dependent  Gospels  cancel 
the  traits  unfavorable  to  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren.  It 
is  possible  that  R's  knowledge  of  the  occasion  of  the  say- 

»  12:  28-34.         2  Lk.  11:  27,  28.         »  Vers.  20,  21,  31-34.  *  Cf.  Jn.  1:  11-13. 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  37 

ing  is  derived  from  Petrine  tradition  at  some  unknown 
point  of  the  story.  The  vivid  description,  and  the  unlikeli- 
hood of  the  invention  of  such  an  occasion  favor  this  view. 
But  it  has  at  this  point  at  all  events  no  relation  to  the 
development  of  the  narrative,  but  on  the  contrary  a  rela- 
tion to  R's  editorial  adaptation  exactly  complementary  to 
6:  1-6. 

The  alien  derivation  of  the  rest  of  Subdivision  a  is  still 
more  probable.  Vers.  22-30  constitute  a  flagrant  prolepsis,1 
certainly  derived  from  the  great  Q  complex  on  the  Collision 
with  the  Scribes.2  It  is  interjected  here  after  the  manner 
of  R's  expansions,  to  heighten  still  further  the  contrast 
of  the  "brotherhood"  to  the  "outsiders."  If  Jesus'  own 
kindred  compelled  him  to  disown  them  by  their  blind 
opposition,  the  synagogue  leaders  brought  upon  them- 
selves the  denunciation  due  to  unpardonable  because  will- 
ful sin. 

We  have  no  evidence  to  prove  that  the  list  of  the  Twelve3 
is  taken  from  Q,  though  the  corresponding  element  of  the 
Charge  to  the  Twelve4  is  probably  derived  thence.  Nega- 
tively, however,  it  can  be  said  that  a  list  which  began  with 
the  name  "Peter"5  instead  of  "Simon,"  as  he  is  called 
throughout  the  preceding  story,  and  which  leaves  no 
room  at  all  for  "Levi  the  son  of  Alphseus,"  substituting 
"James  the  son  of  Alphseus"  for  the  disciple  mentioned 
in  2:  14,  is  not  derived  from  the  same  original  source. 

Vers.  7-12  are  clearly  editorial,6  though  the  last  clause 
of  ver.  7  with  what  follows  shows  traces  of  having  been 
appended  to  the  briefer  original  statement  of  ver.  lab. 
There  is  a  suggestion  here  that  the  Petrine  tradition  also 
represented  at  this  point  a  widening  of  the  scene  in  the 
withdrawal  of  Jesus  "and  his  disciples"  to  the  sea. 


1  Cf.  7:  1,  and  see  Criticism.  *  Mt.  12:  22ff=Lk.  11:  14ff.  »  3:  16-19. 

4  6:  7-13.  6  See  note  on  3:  16.  8  See  Criticism. 


38  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


SEGREGATION  OF  THE  BROTHERHOOD 

PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  a.  3:  7-35.  Recognizing  the  hostility  of  the 
synagogue  authorities,  Jesus  withdrew  to  the  sea-shore,  where 
great  multitudes  resorted  to  him  from  all  quarters.  He, 
however,  withdrew  still  farther  to  the  mountain  region,  per- 
mitting only  a  chosen  few  to  follow,  from  whom  he  chose 
twelve  disciples.  To  these  he  committed  himself  as  his  spirit- 
ual household,  disowning  even  his  mother  and  brethren  when 
they  sought  forcibly  to  arrest  his  work,  and  denouncing  un- 
sparingly the  scribes  who  had  declared  him  possessed  by 
Beelzebul. 

SUBDIVISION  A.    3: 7-35.— CRITICISM 

Before  proceeding  to  his  immediate  subject  R  sketches  in  a  brief 
preliminary  survey1  the  situation  covered  in  the  two  succeeding 
chapters.2  He  then  relates  the  choice  of  the  Twelve  "that  they  might 
be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to 
have  authority  to  cast  out  devils."3  The  culmination  of  the  subdi- 
vision is  the  incident  of  vers.  20-35  in  which  Jesus  constitutes  the 
brotherhood  of  disciples  his  spiritual  household  in  place  of  his  kindred 
after  the  flesh. 

That  no  continuous  historical  tradition  underlies  this  subdivision 
might  be  inferred  from  the  geographical  data  alone.  After  the  single 
item  of  the  withdrawal  to  the  sea  in  3:  7  they  are  wholly  unrelated  to 
the  course  of  events.  No  sooner  is  Jesus  at  the  seaside  in  the  presence 
of  the  eager  multitude,  in  3:  7ff,  than  he  withdraws  from  them  to  the 
mountain  region,  only  to  be  at  the  seaside  teaching  the  multitude 
again  in  4:  Iff.  No  sooner  has  he  retired  to  "the  mountain,"  segregat- 
ing "those  whom  he  himself  would,"  in  ver.  13,  than  immediately  "he 
goeth  home,"  in  ver.  19,  where  he  is  once  more  besieged,  in  vers.  20, 
21,  31-35,  and  again  withdraws  to  the  sea,  in  4:  1.  Here  is,  doubtless, 
historical  tradition,  perhaps  in  duplicate.  But  the  use  made  of  it  is 
merely  that  of  a  framework  for  disconnected  material. 

The  editorial  character  of  the  preliminary  survey  (3:  7-12)  is  suffi- 
ciently apparent  from  the  prolepsis  of  scenes  depicted  throughout  the 
Division — preaching  from  the  boat,  homage  from  the  demons,  healing 
by  touch  of  the  garment.  The  list  of  the  Twelve  we  have  seen  to  be 
derived  from  some  source  independent  of  the  P  narrative.4 

R's  hand  is  most  apparent,  hpwever,  in  the  element  interjected 
from  Q  in  vers.  22-30,  whose  anachronistic  relation  to  the  context  is 
shown  by  the  prolepsis  of  "the  scribes  who  came  down  from  Jerusa- 
lem"5 and  the  teaching  in  parables.6     It  is  taken  in  abridged  form  from 

» 3:  7-12. 

2  With  4:  1  cf.  ver.  9;  with  5:  7,  8  cf.  vers.  11,  12;  with  5:  27-29  cf.  ver.  10. 
*  Vers.  13-19.  *  See  Structure,  p.  37,  and  notes  on  3:  13-19. 

'  First  appearance  in  7:  1,2.  •  With  ver.  23  cf.  4:  10-13. 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  39 

the  Q  complex  of  the  Collision  with  the  Scribes,1  with  the  characteris- 
tic difference  that  whereas  in  Q  blasphemy  against  "the  Son  of  man" 
is  made  forgivable,  the  scribes'  blasphemy  being  unforgivable  just 
because  directed  not  against  Jesus,  but  against  "the  Spirit  of  God,"2 
in  Mark  the  veniality  of  blasphemy  against  the  Son  of  man  is  cancelled 
by  a  turn  of  the  phrase  (in  ver.  28)  and  that  of  the  scribes  made  un- 
forgivable just  because  directed  against  Jesus  personally  (ver.  30). 
The  former  conception  is  characteristic  of  Jesus'  insistent  pointing  to 
God  as  the  source  of  all  help.3  The  latter  reflects  the  later  conflicts  of 
the  Church  with  the  Synagogue  regarding  the  nature  and  source  of 
Jesus'  miraculous  power.4  The  adaptation  to  R's  advanced  Chris- 
tology  of  the  earlier  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  to  which  in  Q  the  miracles 
are  referred  (in  Luke  with  the  distinctly  biblical  phrase,  "the  finger  of 
God"),  should  alone  suffice  here  to  prove  the  dependence  of  Mark  and 

Sriority  of  Q.    On  the  relative  priority  here  of  "the  Son  of  man"  to 
[ark's  "the  sons  of  men"  there  is  no  room  for  reasonable  doubt. 


i  Mt.  12:  22-32=  Lk.  11:  14-22;  12:  10.  2  Mt.  12:  28,  32=  Lk.  11:  20;  12:  10. 

»  10:  18;   11:  22.  *  Cf.  Mk.  5:  19  with  Lk.  8:  39. 


40 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


3*7-13 


7  A  ND  Jesus  with  his  disciples  withdrew  to 
jla.    the  sea:  and  a  great  multitude  from 

8  Galilee  x[f  olio  wed:]  and  from 
Judasa,  and  from  Jerusalem,  and  from 
Idumsea,  and  beyond  Jordan,  and  about 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  a  great  multitude,  hearing 
what  great  things  he  did,  came  unto  him. 

9  And  he  spake  to  his  disciples,  that  a  little 
boat  should  wait  on  him  because  of  the 

10  crowd,  lest  they  should  throng  him:  for  he 
had  healed  many;  insomuch  that  as  many 
as  had  2plagues  3pressed  upon  him  that  they 

11  might  touch  him.  And  the  unclean  spirits, 
whensoever  they  beheld  him,  fell  down 
before  him,  and  cried,  saying,  Thou  art  the 

12  Son  of  God.  And  he  charged  them  much 
that  they  should  not  make  him  known. 

13  And  he  goeth  up  into  the 
mountain,  and  calleth  unto  him  whom  he 
himself  would:  and  they  went  unto  him. 


1  (5  var.  omit  [  ]. 


2  Gr.  scourges. 


3  Gr.  fell. 


Vers.  7-12=Mt. 
12:15,  16= 
L,k.  6:17-19 

R(X) 

R(Q?) 

Mt.  4:  25=Lk.  6: 

17 


4:  1 


5:  27-31 

5:  6-8;  1:24,  34 
Acts  16:  16-18 


Vers.  13-19= 
Mt.  10: 1-4= 
L,k.  6:12-16 

R(Q?) 


3:  7-12.  Preliminary  Description.  Jesus'  withdrawal  to  the  lake- 
shore  seems  to  be  an  element  of  historic  tradition  (P?).  In  vers. 
lb,  8,  R  magnifies  the  simple  "multitude"  of  ver.  la  (note  the  repeti- 
tion 7a  =  7b,  8,  avoided  by  (3  var.)  and  extends  the  spread  of  Jesus' 
fame  to  the  limits  of  Syria  with  special  emphasis  on  the  miracles. 
Matthew  and  Luke  both  employ  this  larger  multitude  as  a  setting 
for  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Mt.  4:  25  =  Lk.  6:  17;  cf.  Mt.  12:  15). 
If  this  is  not  mere  coincidence,  we  must  suppose  76,  8  to  have  stood 
in  Q  as  the  setting  for  the  Sermon.  Our  evangelist,  after  his  man- 
ner, employs  it  to  supplement  the  underlying  (P)  representation  of 
Jesus'  teaching  on  the  lake-side  (2:  13).  Withdrew  to  the  Sea.  In 
the  connection  a  retirement  from  the  hostility  evinced  in  3:  6.  Whether 
some  similar  manifestation  was  related  in  the  Petrine  source  cannot 
be  determined. 

Ver.  9.  Based  on  4:  1. 

Ver.  10.  Based  on  5:  27-31.  The  expression  plagues  (see  var.  rend.) 
is  peculiar  to  these  passages. 

Vers.  11,  12.  Based  on  5:  6-S  (see  on  1:  23-28).  Should  not  make 
him  known.  The  evangelist  does  not  take  into  account  the  futility 
of  the  charge  after  the  secret  is  out  (ver.  11).  It  belongs  with  his 
general  understanding  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  "hardening  of 
Israel"  (Rom.  9 — 11),  that  in  his  person  and  teaching  also  (4:  11) 
Jesus  purposely  withheld  his  message  from  the  "outsiders."  This 
theory  enables  him  to  explain  the  late  appearance  of  the  evangelic 
claims  regarding  Jesus'  Lordship. 

Vers.  13-19.  Choosing  the  Twelve.  Mark  distinguishes  "the  Twelve" 
(so  I  Cor.  15:  5,  and  Q(?),  Mt.  19:  28  =  Lk.  22:  30)  from  "the  disciples" 
(vers.  7,  9).     The  latter  with  the  multitude  which  followed  Jesus  to 


3: 14-17  THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  41 


14  And  he  appointed  twelve,  that  they  might 
be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them 

15  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  authority  to 

16  cast  out  devils:  *and  Simon  he  surnamed 

17  Peter;  and  James  the  (son)  of  Zebedee, 
and  John  the  brother  of  James;  and  them 
he  surnamed  Boanerges,  which  is,  Sons  of 

1  Var.  insert  and  he  appointed  twelve. 


Acts  1:  13 


the  lake-shore  form  an  undifferentiated  mass,  from  which  Jesus  now 
calls  forth  "those  whom  he  himself  would."  With  these  he  retires 
again  from  the  populous  plain  by  the  lake  to  the  sparsely  settled  table- 
land above.  The  object,  as  stated  in  ver.  14,  is  their  training  as  evan- 
gelists and  healers,  a  process  described  in  4:  1 — 6:  6.  There  is  some 
variation  in  the  lists  of  the  apostles  indicating  that  the  number  may 
be  a  very  early  adaptation  (Acts  1:  21,  26). 

Ver.  13.  The  mountain  ==  the  upper  plateau  of  Galilee,  not  a  special 
peak.  In  ver.  18  Jesus  is  already  back  "in  the  house,"  and  in  4:  1 
again  "by  the  seaside"  surrounded  by  the  multitude  from  which  he 
had  withdrawn.  These  changes  of  scene  in  Mark  are  not  historic, 
but  are  described  as  required  by  the  material.  If  a  saying  is  addressed 
to  the  multitude,  or  an  incident  calls  for  their  presence,  the  multitude 
are  brought  in  regardless  of  circumstances  (e.g.,  4:  10,  26ff.;  7:  14; 
8:  34;  9:  14).  Changes  of  scene  are  effected  with  equal  suddenness 
(6:  31,  53;  7:  24,  31;  8:  10,  22,  27).  In  the  present  instance  nothing 
occurs  on  "the  mountain"  which  can  explain  why  it  is  mentioned. 
In  Q  it  is  the  scene  of  the  Sermon,  which  is  addressed  to  "his  disciples." 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  difficulty  only  in  finding  standing  room  for 
"the  multitudes."  In  Matthew  they  apparently  follow  Jesus  to  the  sum- 
mit (Mt.  7:  28).    In  Luke  they  wait  below  for  his  return  (Lk.  6:  17-19). 

Ver.  15.  The  duplicate  clause,  And  he  appointed  the  twelve  (cf.  ver. 
14),  should  be  included  in  the  text  (see  var.).  Only  western  (/?) 
authorities  cancel  it  to  improve  the  rhetoric.  In  reality  the  roughness 
marks  a  seam.  The  list  quoted  ran:  "And  he  appointed  the  Twelve: 
Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  and  Andrew,"  etc.  These  names  are  in 
the  accusative  as  objects  of  the  verb  "appointed."  By  introducing 
his  account  of  the  surnames  in  the  words,  "and  Simon  he  surnamed," 
"and  them  he  surnamed,"  etc.,  R  makes  havoc  of  the  construction. 

Vers.  16,  17.  Peter  .  . .  and  James  .  .  .  and  John.  A  group  of  great 
significance  for  the  early  Church,  so  that  Andrew  now  retires  undis- 
tinguished to  the  fourth  place.  In  Gal.  2:  9  "James  and  Cephas  (Peter) 
and  John"  are  "those  who  were  accounted  pillars"  of  the  Church; 
but  this  is  a  different  James.  The  placing  of  Peter  at  the  head  is  in 
accordance  with  all  our  knowledge  of  him  as  first  confessor  (Mk.  8:  29), 
first  to  found  the  Church  on  the  resurrection  faith  (Lk.  22:  32;  I  Cor. 
15:  5),  honored  with  the  staff  of  chief  under-shepherd  and  the  crown 
of  martyrdom  (Jn.  21:  15-19);  but  Synoptic  tradition  knows  nothing 
to  the  credit  of  James  and  John  save  that  Jesus  predicted  their  sharing 
his  cup  of  martyrdom  (10:  39;  cf.  9:  38-40;  10:  35-37;  Lk.  9:  54-56). 
Acts  12:  1  records  the  fulfillment  of  this  in  the  case  of  James,  and  a 
statement  of  Papias  reported  by  two  excerptors  declares  its  fulfillment 
in  the  case  of  John  also  (see  on  10:  35-45).  The  three  occasions  in 
which  Mark  introduces  "Peter  and  James  and  John"  alone  (Jairus' 
Daughter,  the  Transfiguration,  Gethsemane)  suggest  in  view  of  10: 


42  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  3: 18-21 


18  thunder:  and  Andrew,  and  Philip,  and 
Bartholomew,  and  Matthew,  and  Thomas, 
and  James  the  (son)  of  Alphaeus,  and  Thad- 

19  dseus,  and  Simon  the  ^anansean,  and 
Judas  Iscariot,  which  also  betrayed  him. 

20  And  he  cometh  2into  a  house. 
And  the  multitude  cometh  together  again, 
so  that  they  could  not  so  much  as  eat  bread. 

21  And  when  3his  friends  heard  it,  they  went 

i  Or,  Zealot.     See  Lk.  6:  15;  Acts  1:  13.  2  Or,  home. 

3  p  var.  the  scribes  and  the  rest. 


28-31,  35-45  that  their  pre-eminence  rests  for  him  on  the  fact  that 
they  had  indeed  "followed"  Jesus  in  martyrdom.  If  the  true  sig- 
nificance of  the  title,  Sons  of  thunder,  Mark's  rendering  of  the  obscure 
Aramaic  Boanerges,  could  be  discovered,  it  might  elucidate  this  ques- 
tion.   It  is  doubtless  connected  with  the  tradition  of  Luke  9 :  54-56. ' 

Ver.  18.  Matthew.  If  identified  with  "Levi  son  of  Alphaeus"  of 
2:  14,  as  in  Mt.  9:  10,  the  unexplained  difference  of  name  will  strongly 
confirm  the  derivation  of  this  list  from  a  different  source.  Cf.  "Mat- 
thias," Acts  1:  26.  Alphaeus.  In  3:  14  the  father  of  Levi.  Hence  the 
/?  text  substitutes  "James"  at  that  point.  For  the  patronymic  "son 
of  Alphaeus"  we  have  in  15:  40  "the  little."  James'  mother  "Mary"  is 
called  in  the  parallel  (Jn.  19:  25)  "the  wife  of  Clopas."  But  it  is  more 
than  doubtful  if  Alphaeus  and  Clopas  are  the  same  name.  Thaddaeus. 
In  the  Lukan  lists  (Lk.  6:  16;  Acts  1: 13)  we  have  instead  "Judas  (son? 
brother?)  of  James,"  who  appears  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  "Judas,  not 
Iscariot."    The  /?  text  of  both  Matthew  and  Mark  gives  "Lebbaeus." 

Ver.  19.  The  Cananaean.  In  Lk.  6:  15  properly  translated  "Zealot," 
i.e.,  an  adherent  of  the  nationalist  party.  The  Zealots  urged  resort  to 
the  sword  to  throw  off  the  foreign  yoke.  If  R  knew  the  meaning  of 
the  Aramaic  word  he  has  this  time  overlooked  a  very  needful  explana- 
tion for  his  Roman  readers.  Iscariot.  In  Jn.  6:  71  the  epithet  is  a 
patronymic  ="man  of  Kerioth,"  a  town  of  Moab  (Jer.  48:  24,  41). 

Vers.  20-30.  Spiritual  Kin.  Blasphemy  of  the  Scribes.  Two  inci- 
dents are  here  interwoven  as  in  5:  21-43  and  6:  14-29.  The  second 
(vers.  22-30)  has  no  connection  with  the  first  save  to  illustrate  the 
relative  veniality  of  the  opposition  of  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren. 
These  said  in  their  blindness,  "He  is  beside  himself."  The  scribes 
who  came  down  from  Jerusalem  willfully  blasphemed  him  and  became 
thus  "guilty  of  an  eternal  sin,  because  they  said,  He  hath  an  unclean 
spirit."  On  the  relation  of  this  interjected  element  to  Q  see  above, 
Criticism,  p.  38.  The  saying  of  ver.  35  is  given  in  a  wholly  independent 
version  in  Lk.  11:  27,  28.  The  elaborate  description  of  the  situation 
wherewith  Mark  introduces  it  (vers.  20,  21,  31-34)  is  intended  to  exclude 
all  possibility  of  doubt  as  to  who  are  the  real  kindred  of  the  Messiah 
(cf.  7:  5).  In  adopting  his  account  Matthew  and  Luke  are  careful  to 
remove  the  sting  of  a  reflection  on  the  family  of  Jesus  by  cancelling 
vers.  20,  21,  leaving  us  thus  no  explanation  of  Jesus'  refusal  to  go. 
Cf.  their  cancellation  of  "his  own  kin"  in  6:  4. 

Ver.  21.  His  friends  (Gr.,  "those  who  belonged  to  him").    The  ref- 

1  See  Bacon,  art.,  "The  Marty  Apostles"  in  Expositor,  vii.  21  (Sept.,  1907), 
where  "sons  of  thunder"  is  connected  with  anticipations  of  the  second  coming. 
John  the  Baptist,  whose  second  advent  is  expected  to  herald  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  by  Justin  Martyr,  receives  this  title  in  Pseudo-Methodiua. 


3:22-26 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


43 


out  to  lay  hold  on  him:  for  they  said,  He  is 

22  beside  himself .  And  the  scribes 
which  came  down  from  Jerusalem  said, 
He  hath  Beelzebub,  and,  *By  the  prince 
of  the  devils   casteth  he  out  the  devils. 

23  And  he  called  them  unto  him,  and  said 
unto  them  in  parables,   How  can  Satan 

24  cast  out  Satan?  And  if  a  kingdom  be 
divided  against  itself,  that  kingdom  can- 

25  not  stand.  And  if  a  house  be  divided 
against  itself,  that  house  will  not  be  able 

26  to  stand.  And  if  Satan  hath  risen  up 
against  himself,  and  is  divided,  he  cannot 

i  Or,  In. 


Vers.  22-30= 
Mt.  9:32-34 

R(Q) 

(Mt.  12:  22-32= 
Lk.  11:  14-22; 
12:  10) 


erence  is  certainly  to  Jesus'  "mother  and  brethren"  (cf.  vers.  31-35). 
It  is  avoided  in  the  /?  text  (see  var.)  for  the  same  reason  that  Matthew 
and  Luke  omit.  The  fact  that  the  only  other  reference  in  this  Pauline 
Roman  Gospel  to  the  kindred  of  Jesus,  so  eminent  in  the  Jerusalem 
church,  is  in  6:  1-4,  where  the  condemnatory  saying  (6:  4)  explicitly 
includes  them,  must  be  judged  in  connection  with  its  severe  and  per- 
sistent rebukes  of  "Peter,"  "John,"  "James  and  John,"  and  "the 
disciples,"  for  worldly  misconception  (8: 33;  9:6),  intolerance  (9: 
38-41;  10:13-16),  self-seeking  ambition  (10:28-31,  35-45)  and 
foolish  self-confidence  (14:  29-31,  37-40,  66-72),  unrelieved  by  the 
commendations  so  heartily  bestowed  on  Peter  in  the  other  Gospels 
(Mt.  16:  17-19;  Lk.  22:  32  [cf.  Mk.  14:  28];  Jn.  6:  68-71;  21:  15-19). 
R's  exceptionally  harsh  treatment  of  Judaism  (7:  1-7)  is  a  parallel 
phenomenon.  Went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him.  Jesus'  relatives  come 
down  from  Nazareth  to  put  a  stop  to  a  career  which  seems  to  them 
insane  (cf.  Jn.  7:5).  Matthew  and  Luke  are  debarred  by  their  opening 
chapters  from  admitting  this  account. 

Ver.  22.  The  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem  (cf.  7:  1,  2). 
He  hath  Beelzebub  (true  reading,  Beelzebul).  An  adaptation  of  Q, 
"by  Beelzebul,"  etc.  (cf.  ver.  30).  The  name  of  "the  prince  of  the 
demons"  is  Beelzebub  in  all  the  Greek  mss.  ;  and  this  is  certainly  correct 
as  against  Beelzebub  (Sinaitic  Syriac),  which  rests  on  II  Kings  1:  6 
(Greek  version  of  Symmachus),  for  the  meaning  of  Baalzebul,  i.e., 
"Lord  of  the  (heavenly)  dwelling,"  is  played  upon  in  Mt.  10:  25.  It  is  an 
opprobrious  rendering  of  the  Greek  Zeus  Ouranios,  whose  point  lies  in 
the  alternative  meaning  of  zebul,  viz,  "dung."  Mark  has  reserved 
for  later  development  the  specific  exorcisms  which  gave  rise  to  the 
sneer;  see  on  7:  32-37; "8:  22-26;  and  cf.  Mt.  12:22,  23=  Lk.  11:14. 
His  cures  are  now  attributed  (covertly  Mt.  12:25  =  Lk.  11:17)  to 
possession  (cf.  Mt.  11:  18;  Jn.  7:  20). 

Vers.  23-26.  Called  them.  Jesus  takes  the  aggressive  with  a  di- 
lemma. Vers.  23-26  assume  the  truth  of  the  accusation.  In  that 
case  the  message,  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,"  is  confirmed; 
the  anarchy  in  Satan's  dominion  is  the  sure  prelude  of  its  fall.  Ver.  27 
declares  its  falsity  with  the  inference  that  the  Stronger  than  Satan 
has  appeared.  In  Q  this  Stronger  One  is  "the  Spirit  of  God"  (Mt.  12: 
27,  28  =  Lk.  11:  19,  20).    Mark  cancels  these  significant  verses,  leaving 


44 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        3*  27-35 


27  stand,  but  hath  an  end.  But  no  one  can 
enter  into  the  house  of  the  strong  (man), 
and  spoil  his  goods,  except  he  first  bind 
the  strong  (man);  and  then  he  will  spoil 

28  his  house.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  All  their 
sins  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men, 
and   their   blasphemies   wherewith   soever 

29  they  shall  blaspheme:  but  whosoever  shall 
blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal 

30  sin:  because  they  said,  He  hath  an  unclean 
spirit. 

31  And  there  come  his  mother 
and  his  brethren;  and,  standing  without, 

32  they  sent  unto  him,  calling  him.  And  a 
multitude  was  sitting  about  him;  and  they 
say  unto  him,  Behold,  thy  mother  and  thy 

33  brethren  without  seek  for  thee.  And  he 
answereth    them,  and    saith,  Who  is  my 

34  mother  and  my  brethren?  And  looking 
round  on  them  which  sat  round  about  him, 
he    saith,    Behold,    my    mother    and    my 

35  brethren!  For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will 
of  God,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister, 
and  mother. 


Vers.  31-35= 
Mt.  12:4&-50 
=Lk.  8:19-31 

R  (Q™) 
(Lk.  11:27,28) 


it  to  appear  that  Jesus  refers  to  his  own  prowess.  Lk.  11:  21  seems 
also  to  follow  this  sense,  modifying  the  language.  This  is  still  more  the 
case  in  Eph.  4:  8-10;  5:  7-14;  6:  10-17;  Col.  2:  15;  I  Pt.  3:  19;  Rev. 
20:  1-3,  which  are  developed  in  the  patristic  doctrine  of  the  "harrow- 
ing of  hell."  In  this  the  ancient  mythological  conflict  of  the  light-hero 
with  the  monsters  of  darkness,  already  reflected  in  Is.  26:  17-19;  27:  1; 
28:  9-18,  is  recast  to  set  forth  the  victory  of  Christ  over  Death  and 
Hell. 

Vers.  28,  29.  For  the  changes  from  Q  see  Criticism,  p.  39.  The 
earliest  fathers  have  a  special  horror  of  opposing  what  is  done  "in 
the  Spirit"  (Clem.  Rom.,  ad  Cor.,  lix,  Ixiii;  Didachc,  xi.  7).  The  sin 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Synagogue  as  conceived  by  Mark  is  the  persistent, 
willful,  and  extreme  form  of  this  type  of  blasphemy.  The  original 
sense  appears  better  in  Lk.  11:  34,  35;  Jn.  9:  39-41. 

Vers.  31-35.  On  the  carefully  elaborated  setting  of  the  saying  see 
above,  p.  36.  It  applies  to  Jesus'  obedient  followers  generally,  though 
introduced  apropos  of  the  choosing  of  the  Twelve.  The  saying  itself 
(ver.  35)  strongly  reflects  the  Jewish  conception  of  "sonship."  The 
"son"  of  God  is  he  who  knows  and  does  the  Lord's  will  (Rom.  2:  17-20; 
cf.  Lk.  12:  47,  48).  This  is  the  place  of  Israel  and  the  revealed  Law. 
In  this  supremely  great  saying  Jesus  becomes  the  champion  and  "elder 
brother"  of  those  whose  sonship  rests  on  no  other  law  than  to  "be  imi- 
tators of  God  as  beloved  children  and  walk  in  love"  (Eph.  5:  1;  cf. 
Q,  Mt.  5:  45  =  Lk.  6:  35). 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  45 


JESUS  DELIVERS  THE  MYSTERY  OF  THE  KINGDOM  IN 
PARABLES 

PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  b.  4:  1-34.  Once  more  at  the  lake-side,  sur- 
rounded by  the  multitude,  Jesus  began  to  teach  from  the  boat. 
But  his  teaching  was  veiled  in  enigmas,  so  that  only  such  as 
came  and  questioned  him  could  understand.  By  this  means 
he  purposely  withheld  the  truth  from  the  careless  and  unde- 
serving, while  conveying  it  to  the  remnant  who  would  turn  it  to 
account. 

Vers.  3-9.  By  the  example  of  a  sower,  much  of  whose 
seed  goes  to  waste  on  unproductive  soil,  but  who  reaps  a  har- 
vest from  the  good  land,  Jesus  set  forth  the  conditions  under 
which  the  gospel  is  preached. 

Vers.  10-20.  Afterward,  when  he  was  alone  with  the 
Twelve,  they  asked  him  concerning  the  parables,  and  he 
explained  both  why  he  used  this  mode  of  teaching,  and  the 
meaning  of  the  comparison.  The  veiled  form  of  utterance 
was  chosen  in  obedience  to  the  prophecy  which  predicted  such 
a  mode  of  teaching  to  Israel,  because  of  their  obduracy  to  the 
truth.  The  significance  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower  was  to 
exemplify  the  various  forms  of  this  obduracy  in  contrast  with 
the  remnant  who  hear  and  believe. 

Vers.  21-25.  In  a  group  of  sayings  he  further  sets  before 
the  disciples  this  principle  of  hiding  the  truth  now,  for  its 
more  perfect  ultimate  manifestation. 

Vers.  26-29.  In  his  public  teaching  Jesus  also  used  the 
comparison  of  grain,  which  slowly  and  imperceptibly  matures, 
but  when  fully  ripe  is  reaped  and  garnered  in  briefest  time. 

Vers.  30-34.  So  also  the  greatness  of  the  Kingdom,  as 
compared  with  its  small  beginnings  in  the  world,  is  compared 
to  the  greatness  of  the  mustard-plant  which  springs  from  the 
insignificant  nucleus  of  the  seed. 


SUBDIVISION  B.    4: 1-34.— CRITICISM 

One  of  the  most  striking  departures  of  Mark  from  the  type  of  gospel 
reflected  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  through  their  common  use  of  Q,  is  the 
substitution  for  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  the  Preaching  in  Parables, 
which  our  evangelist  interprets  to  have  been  a  method  of  talking  in 
riddles,  so  as  to  convey  the  hidden  sense  only  to  initiates.1     Until 

1  4:  11,  12,  34. 


46  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

Jesus  has  segregated  from  "those  that  are  without"  a  group  of  followers, 
of  whom  the  Twelve  form  merely  the  inner  circle  (that  is  to  say,  an 
anticipatory  model  of  the  Church  as  the  evangelist  conceives  it),  no 
description  of  the  content  of  his  teaching  is  given.  Even  now  there 
is  no  exposition  as  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  that  "will  of  God" 
by  doing  which  one  becomes  a  "son,"  a  brother,  sister,  or  mother  of 
Jesus.1  The  parables  merely  support  the  eschatological  message  that 
the  kingdom  is  at  hand. 

It  is  characteristic  of  Mark's  Gospel  that  the  conditions  of  tension 
between  the  chaberim,  or  adherents  of  the  Synagogue,  and  the  spirit- 
ually disinherited  "people  of  the  land,"  to  whom  Jesus  gave  both  the 
assurance  of  forgiveness,  and  "a  right  to  be  called  the  children  of  God" 
by  fulfilling  the  inward  law,2  is  lost  out  of  sight,  eclipsed  as  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  by  the  desire  to  secure  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ. 
Thus  in  Mark  the  attention  of  the  whole  people  is  aroused,  not  by  the 
nature  of  Jesus'  message,  but  by  his  startling  assumptions  of  super- 
human "authority,"  which  are  borne  out  by  exhibitions  of  miraculous 
power.  Having  by  this  means  separated  a  receptive  following  worthy 
to  be  called  his  kindred  according  to  the  spirit, 3  Jesus  delivers  to  them 
"the  mystery  of  the  kingdom,"  adopting  an  allegorical  mode  of  speech 
for  the  express  purpose  of  concealing  it  from  the  "outsiders."  The 
scripture  quoted  in  support  of  this  anti-Jewish  theory  is  Isaiah's 
complaint  that  he  is  sent  to  prophesy  to  a  people  so  obdurate  that 
one  must  attribute  it  to  a  divine  predestination  to  "hardening."  This 
theory,  including  the  passage  quoted,4  had  been  set  forth  at  length  by 
Paul  in  Rom.  9 — ll.5  The  passage  itself  soon  becomes  the  Church's 
locus  classicus  against  the  objection:  Why  is  he  whom  you  represent 
to  have  been  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews  rejected  by  the  Jews  themselves?8 
The  Pauline  phraseology  of  Mark7  and  his  consistent  representation  of 
Jesus'  attitude  toward  "the  Jews"8  make  the  reasons  plain  for  his 
departure  from  the  more  historical  representation  of  Q. 


i  3:  35.         2  Mt.  5:  43-48=Lk.  6:  27-36.         3  3:  31-35.         *  Is.  6:  9,  10;  29:  10. 

6  Cf.  Rom.  11:  7-10  with  Mk.  4:  11,  12;  6:  52;  7:  18;  8:  17,  18. 

c  Acts  28:  25-28;  Jn.  12:  39, 40.  7  See  note  on  4:  11,  12.  8  7:  3,  6,  7. 


4:1-6 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


47 


4     A  ND  again  he  began  to  teach  by  the  sea 

A    side.    And  there  is  gathered  unto  him 

a  very  great  multitude,  so  that  he 

entered  into  a  boat,  and  sat  vm  the  sea;  and 

all  the  multitude  were  *by  the  sea  2[  on  the 

2  land].  And  he  taught  them  many 
things  in  parables,  and  said  unto  them  in 

3  his  teaching,  Hearken:     Behold,  the  sower 

4  went  forth  to  sow:  and  it  came  to  pass,  as 
he  sowed,  some  (seed)  fell  by  the  way  side, 

5  and  the  birds  came  and  devoured  it.  And 
other  fell  on  the  rocky  (ground),  where  it 
had  not  much  earth;  and  straightway  it 
sprang  up,  because  it  had  no  deepness  of 

6  earth:  and  when  the  sun  was  risen,  it  was 


/S  var.  beyond. 


2  p  van  omit  [  ]. 


Vers.  l-9=Mt. 
13:  l-9=Lk. 
5:1-3;  8:4-1 
(P?) 


(Q?) 


4:  1-9.  The  Parable  of  the  Sower.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  parables  as  such  formed  a  group  by  themselves  in  Q.  Yet 
the  three  adduced  by  Mark  in  illustration  of  his  theory  of  Jesus'  teach- 
ing (ver.  33)  have  as  their  common  feature  the  growth  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  as  one  of  the  three  is  certainly  from  Q  (see  note  on  vers. 
30-32)  it  is  reasonable  to  attribute  its  companions  to  the  same  source. 
But  if  so  there  are  indications  that  Mark  has  reversed  their  order, 
putting  first  that  which  alone  required   (and  therefore  was  accom- 

Eanied  by)  an  explanation.  The  change  of  order  was  doubtless  effected 
ecause  to  R's  mind  the  parable  of  the  Sower  illustrated  the  contrast 
between  responsive  hearers  (the  disciples)  and  unresponsive  (the  Jews; 
see  note  on  vers.  4-7),  who,  "having  ears  to  hear,"  would  not  hear. 
But  the  reference  in  ver.  10  to  "the  parables,"  and  in  ver.  13  to  "all 
the  parables,"  implies  that  not  only  vers.  3-9,  but  the  whole  series, 
had  already  been  uttered.  Indeed,  the  continuation  of  the  preaching 
to  the  multitude,  in  vers.  26-34,  after  ver.  10  ("when  he  was  alone") 
had  carried  us  beyond  the  point  of  their  dispersion,  is  almost  enough 
to  prove  this  point.  If,  contrariwise,  we  put  first  the  Mustard  Seed 
(vers.  30-32),  with  its  introductory  appeal,  "How  shall  we  liken  the 
kingdom  of  God?"  all  obscurity  vanishes.  This  parable  answers  the 
objection:  So  great  an  event  should  be  heralded  by  great  prodigies. 
The  next,  the  Patient  Husbandman  (vers.  26-29)  contrasts  the  present 
as  a  time  of  hopeful,  patient  service  with  the  far  different  activity  of  the 
future  (see  note).  Finally,  the  Sower,  vers.  2-9,  originally  last  of  the 
group  (note  the  concluding  formula,  ver.  9),  answers  the  objection: 
But  in  this  sowing  much  effort  is  wasted.  What  use  in  teaching  this 
"people  of  the  land"? 

Ver.  1  has  the  graphic  character  we  have  found  in  the  "Petrine" 
traditions;  but  we  have  no  assurance  that  it  served  originally  as  a  setting 
for  the  Teaching  in  Parables.  In  Lk.  5:  1-3  it  introduces  a  different 
scene;  while  the  Sower,  in  Lk.  8:  4-8,  has  also  a  wholly  diverse  con- 
nection. 

Vers.  4-7.  The  earliest  Church  fathers  applied  this  description  of 
the  ungrateful  soil  to  the  Jews,  adducing  Jer.  4:  3,  "Sow  not  upon 
thorns,  break  up  the  fallow  ground"  (the  Gentiles).    Mark  has  a  similar 


48 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


4:  7-12 


scorched;  and  because  it  had  no  root,  it 

7  withered  away.  And  other  fell  among  the 
thorns,  and  the  thorns  grew  up,  and  choked 

8  it,  and  it  yielded  no  fruit.  And  others  fell 
into  the  good  ground,  and  yielded  fruit, 
growing  up  and  increasing;  and  brought 
forth,  thirtyfold,  and  sixtyfold,  and  a  hun- 

9  dredfold.  And  he  said,  Who  hath 
ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

10  And  when  he  was  alone,  they  that  were 
about  him  with  the  twelve  asked  of  him  the 

11  parables.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Unto  you  is  given  the  mystery  of  the  king- 
dom of  God:  but  unto  them  that  are  without, 

12  all  things  are  done  in  parables:  that  seeing 
they  may  see,  and  not  perceive;  and  hear- 
ing they  may  hear,  and  not  understand; 
lest  haply  they  should  turn  again,  and  it 


Vers.  10-30= 
Mt.   13:  10-23 
=L,k.  8:9-15 

R(Q) 

(Mt.  11:  25-27= 
Lk.  10:  21,  22) 

Is.  6:  9 


conception.  Intrinsically  the  parable  is  an  encouragement  to  hopeful 
effort  in  spite  of  meager  results  in  many  cases.  As  a  companion  to 
that  of  the  Patient  Husbandman  (see  on  26-29)  it  is  specially  sig- 
nificant. 

Ver.  8.  Thirty,  sixty,  a  hundred.  The  allegorizing  interpretation  of 
the  early  Church  is  well  illustrated  in  the  use  made  by  "the  Elders" 
of  Papias  (ca.  120  a.d.)  of  this  feature.  Commenting  on  Mt.  13:  23; 
20:  28  (3  and  the  saying  Jn.  14:  2,  they  inferred  that  there  are  three 
''mansions"  in  heaven  and  three  grades  at  the  Lord's  banqueting 
table  corresponding  to  these  three  degrees  of  merit.  The  allegorizing 
tendency  is  unfortunately  still  prevalent. 

Ver.  9.  A  "winged  word"  frequently  interjected. 

Ver.  10.  The  sense  is  carried  on  in  ver.  13.  "All  the  parables"  have 
preceded.  The  multitude  have  dispersed.  The  disciples  ask  an  inter- 
pretation of  them;  not  why  Jesus  speaks  in  parables.  The  interjected 
vers.  11,  12  and  21-25  answer  the  latter  question.  We  must  therefore 
regard  vers.  10,  13-20  as  already  attached  to  the  series  of  parables 
(ver.  13,  "all  the  parables")  when  R  altered  the  bearing  of  the  question 
by  inserting  vers.  11,  12  and  adding  21-25.  The  interpretation  already 
tends  to  allegory,  but  represents  an  earlier  stage  of  editorial  develop- 
ment quite  free  as  yet  from  the  anti-Jewish  dogmatism  of  R. 

Vers.  11, 12.  Adapted  from  Q  (Mt.  11:  25r27  =  Lk.  10:  21,  22).  The 
real  identity  of  the  saying  in  spite  of  the  divergence  of  form  is  shown 
by  the  transitional  form  it  assumes  in  an  early  apocryphal  gospel 
quoted  by  Clement  (ca.  220  a.d.):  "My  mystery  is  for  me  and  the  sons 
of  my  household."1  The  "revelation  to  babes"  for  which  Jesus  thanks 
God,  though  it  is  hid  from  the  wise  and  understanding,  is  made  by 
Mark  in  this  Pauline  form  (on  the  hidden  mystery  of  the  kingdom 
cf.  I  Cor.  1:  18 — 3:  1,  especially  2:  7)  the  basis  of  his  entire  representa- 
tion.    Hystery.     A  Pauline  word  derived  from  the  Greek  chthonic 


1  Clem.  Alex.,  Stromata  V,  x.  69.    It  is  given  also  in  similar  form  in  the  Clem- 
entine Homilies,  xix.  20. 


4: 13-20 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


49 


13  should  be  forgiven  them.  And  he 
saith  unto  them,  Know  ye  not  this  par- 
able?   and   how   shall    ye   know   all    the 

14  parables?     The  sower    soweth  the  word. 

15  And  these  are  they  by  the  way  side,  where 
the  word  is  sown;  and  when  they  have 
heard,  straightway  cometh  Satan,  and 
taketh  away  the  word  which  hath  been  sown 

16  in  them.  And  these  in  like  manner  are 
they  that  are  sown  upon  the  rocky  (places) , 
who,    when   they   have   heard   the   word, 

17  straightway  receive  it  with  joy;  and  they 
have  no  root  in  themselves,  but  endure 
for  a  while;  then,  when  tribulation  or  per- 
secution   ariseth    because    of    the    word, 

18  straightway  they  stumble.  And  others 
are  they  that  are  sown  among  the  thorns; 
these  are  they  that  have  heard  the  word, 

19  and  the  cares  of  the  *world,  and  the  de- 
ceitfulness  of  riches,  2[and  the  lusts  of  other 
things]  entering  in,  choke  the  word,  and  it 

20  becometh  unfruitful.  And  those  are  they 
that  were  sown  upon  the  good  ground; 
such  as  hear  the  word,  and  accept  it,  and 
bear  fruit,  thirtyfold  and  sixtyfold,  and  a 
hundredfold. 


1  Or,  age. 


2 13  var.  omit  [  ]. 


religions  (see  Bible  Diet.,  s.v.).  The  root  idea  is  not  of  intrinsic  ob- 
scurity, but  of  that  which  can  only  be  known  by  divine  communica- 
tion, hence  "revelation."  Those  outside  (cf.  3:  31-35).  Those  who 
"have  ears  to  hear"  are  Jesus'  kindred  after  the  spirit.  His  kindred 
after  the  flesh  hear  his  preaching  only  outwardly  and  to  their  own  con- 
demnation. 

Vers.  13-20.  An  explanation  of  the  parable  purely  hortatory  in  type, 
quite  unrelated  to  the  polemic  application  of  3:  31-35  and  vers.  11,  12. 
But  even  here  the  hearers  in  mind  are  those  of  the  Christian  Church 
(see  note  on  ver.  17),  not  of  the  Galilean  multitude.  In  the  parable 
only  worthless  soils  in  general  are  in  mind.  Its  moral  is:  The  farmer 
is  not  discouraged  because  part  of  his  seed  goes  to  waste.  The  ex- 
planation allegorizes,  fixing  attention  on  the  various  sorts  of  plants 
which  produce  or  fail  to  produce.  Its  moral  is :  Do  you,  hearers  of  the 
word,  take  heed  not  to  let  it  remain  unfruitful.  Soweth  the  word. 
Already  a  stereotyped  phrase,  as  in  2:2;  cf.  Gal.  6:6;  Phil.  1:14; 
IThess.  1:  6;  II  Tim.  4:2. 

Ver.  17.  Tribulation  or  persecution  (cf.  IThess.  2:  14;  Gal.  6:  12). 
The  conditions  of  later  times  are  artlessly  imported.  They  stumble. 
Already  a  technical  term  for  backsliding  as  well  as  unbelief  (cf.  Rom. 
9:32,  33;  11:9;  I  Cor.  1:23). 


50 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        4:21-27 


21  And  he  said  unto  them,  Is 
the  lamp  brought  to  be  put  under  the 
bushel,  or  under  the  bed,  (and)  not  to  be  put 

22  on  the  stand?  For  there  is  nothing 
hid,  save  that  it  should  be  manifested; 
neither  was   (anything)    made  secret,  but 

23  that  it  should  come  to  light.  If 
any  man  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

24  And  he  said  unto  them,  Take 
heed  what  ye  hear :  with  what  meas- 
ure ye  mete  it  shall  be  measured  unto 
you:                 and  more  shall  be  given  unto 

25  you.  For  he  that  hath,  to  him  shall 
be  given:  and  he  that  hath  not,  from  him 
shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he  hath. 

26  And  he  said,  So  is  the  king- 
dom of  God,  as  if  a  man  should  cast  seed 

27  upon  the  earth;  and  should  sleep  and  rise 
night  and  day,  and  the  seed  should  spring 


Vers.  31-25= 
Mt.  13:  12= 
L,k.  8:16-18 

R  (Q) 
(Mt.  5:  15=  Lk. 

11:33) 
(Mt.  10:  26=Lk. 

12:  2) 


(Mt.  11:  15;  Lk. 
14:  35) 

(Mt.  7:  2=Lk.  6: 
38) 


(Mt.  25:  29=Lk. 
19:  26) 


Vers.  26-29= 
Mt.  13:24-30; 

cf.  Mt.  13:  36- 
43 

(Q?) 


Vers.  21-25.  This  loosely  agglutinated  string  of  sayings,  omitted  by 
Matthew  (except  ver.  25),  is  typical  of  the  work  of  R  (cf.  9:  33-50; 
13:  3-37).  Vers.  24,  25  supplement  the  hortatory  application,  vers. 
13-20.  Vers.  21-23  add  two  sayings  supposed  to  justify  or  explain 
the  hard  saying  about  the  hiding  of  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom,  vers. 
11,  12  (note  the  repetition  of  ver.  9  in  ver.  23).  The  connections  of  Q 
(where  Matthew  and  Luke  have  coincident  settings)  are  usually  better. 
R  appears  to  cite  from  memory. 

Ver.  21.  Uttered  against  the  scribes  in  Lk.  11:33;  cf.  Mt.  5:15. 
The  sense  seems  to  have  been,  Superior  enlightenment  should  be  a  spur 
to  service,  not  a  jealously  guarded  patent  of  exclusive  privilege.  R 
seems  to  apply  it  to  the  former  and  latter  coming  of  Christ,  "the  Lamp" 
(Rev.  21:  23),  now  in  obscurity,  hereafter  on  the  "throne  of  glory." 

Ver.  22.  It  is  not  hid.  In  Mt.  10:  26  applied  to  Jesus'  doctrine;  in 
Lk.  12:  2  to  the  hidden  misdeeds  of  the  Pharisees.  Here  to  "the  mys- 
tery of  the  kingdom."    The  original  application  is  indeterminable. 

Ver.  246.  In  Q  (Mt.  7:  2  =  Lk.  6:38)  a  warning  against  censorious 
judgment.  The  first  and  last  clauses  of  the  verse  adapt  it  to  R's  appli- 
cation, exhibited  in  ver.  25. 

Ver.  25.  In  Q  (Mt.  25:  29  =  Lk.  19:  26)  a  warning  not  to  neglect  "the 
gift  that  is  in  thee."  Here  applied  to  Jews  vs.  Christians  in  the  sense 
of  Mt.  21:43. 

Vers.  26-29.  The  Parable  of  the  Patient  Husbandman.  With  the 
simple  formula  And  he  said  R  returns  to  the  parables  of  the  kingdom 
and  the  situation  of  vers.  1,  2  (cf.  ver.  35).  The  multitude,  who  during 
the  digression  (vers.  10-25)  are  lost  from  view,  are  now  again  the 
audience,  since  the  subject  is  "the  kingdom  of  God."  But  the  relation 
of  this  parable  to  Mt.  13:  24-30  (the  Tares)  is  obscure.  It  is  indeed 
apparent  from  the  addition  of  a  special  interpretation  (Mt.  13:  36-43) 
making  explicit  application  of  the  parable  to  the  antinomian  heretics 
(Mt.  13:  41)  that  Matthew  is  introducing  features  in  line  with  his  own 


4:28-33 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


51 


28  up  and  grow,  he  knoweth  not  how.  The 
earth  xbeareth  fruit  of  herself;  first  the 
blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in 

29  the  ear.  But  when  the  fruit  2is  ripe, 
straightway  he  3putteth  forth  the  sickle, 
because  the  harvest  is  come. 

30  And  he  said,  How  shall  we  liken  the 
kingdom  of  God?  or  in  what  parable  shall 

31  we  set  it  forth?  4It  is  like  a  grain  of 
mustard  seed,  which,  when  it  is  sown  upon 
the  earth,  though  it  be  less  than  all  the 

32  seeds  that  are  upon  the  earth,  yet  when 
it  is  sown,  groweth  up,  and  becometh 
greater  than  all  the  herbs,  and  putteth 
out  great  branches;  so  that  the  birds  of 
the  heaven  can  lodge  under  the  shadow 
thereof. 

33  And  with  many  such  para- 
bles spake  he  the  word  unto  them,  as  they 


1  Or,  yieldeth. 
*  Gr.  As  unto. 


2  Or,  allowetk. 


3  Or,  sendeth  forth. 


Joel  (3)  4:  13 
(Gr.) 

Vers.  30-32=Mt. 
13:  31,  32=Lk. 
13:  18,  19 
(Q) 


Dan.  4:  10-12 


Vers.  33,  34= 
Mt.  13:34,  35 
R 


special  interest  (cf.  Mt.  7:  20-23;  24:  12).  In  particular  Mt.  13:  27,28a 
seems  to  be  an  editorial  development  in  this  line.  But  conversely 
Mark  also  shows  signs  of  a  lack.  As  it  stands  the  parable  adds  so  little 
to  its  companions,  the  Sower  and  the  Mustard  Seed,  that  Luke  cancels 
it  as  superfluous.  But  the  twin  parable  (Mt.  13:  47-50)  furnishes  the 
complete  solution.  The  description  of  the  monotonous  routine  of  the 
husbandman's  life  (ver.  27)  is  not  a  superfluous  trait,  but  a  remnant 
indicative  of  the  original  application.  The  parable  answers  the  objec- 
tion of  the  murmurers  of  II  Pt.  3:  4.  The  cry  is:  Let  God  intervene 
and  avenge  his  elect,  let  the  wicked  (Matthew,  the  heretics)  be  cast 
out  (Lk.  18:  7;  Rev.  6:  10;  14:  15).  The  answer  is  precisely  paralleled 
in  Jas.  5:  7:  God  is  a  wise  husbandman.  He  does  not  thrust  in  the 
sickle  till  the  period  of  growth  is  fully  completed  (cf.  13:  28,  29).  But 
something  corresponding  to  the  appearance  (not  the  sowing)  of  the 
tares  in  the  wheat  seems  to  be  lacking  before  ver.  28,  perhaps  eliminated 
on  account  of  R's  attitude  (see  on  9:  40). 

Vers.  30-32.  The  Mustard  Seed.  This  simplest  of  the  three  parables 
of  the  kingdom  answers  the  objection  to  the  proclamation  of  the  king- 
dom which  arises  from  its  inconspicuousness.  God  chooses  the  weak 
things  of  the  world  to  confound  the  mighty  (I  Cor.  1:  27).  Mark 
elaborated  allegorically  in  vers.  31,  32  on  the  basis  of  Is.  17:  22,  23 
(Greek  version);  Dan.  4:  21.  The  simpler  form  of  Q  is  unmistakably 
traceable  through  the  coincidence  of  Matthew  with  Luke.  In  Q  it 
was  a  companion  to  that  of  the  Leaven,  both  referring  to  the  End  of 
the  world  (Mt.  13:  31-33  =  Lk.  13:  18-21). 

Ver.  31.  Less  than  all  the  seeds.  An  exaggeration  suggested  by  the 
application  to  the  Church  (cf.  Dt.  26:  5). 

Vers.  33,  34.  Conclusion.  Knowledge  of  other  parables  is  implied 
in  ver.  33,  but  the  evangelist's  purpose  is  not  to  impart  Jesus'  teaching, 


52  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  4:34 


34  were  able  to  hear  it :  and  without  a  parable 
spake  he  not  unto  them:  but  privately  to 
his  own  disciples  he  expounded  all  things. 


but  to  depict  his  career.  There  seems  to  be  more  or  less  conflict  be- 
tween ver.  33  and  ver.  34.  The  latter  occupies  strictly  the  standpoint 
of  R.  Jesus  reserves  plain  utterances  for  "his  own  disciples"  for  the 
reason  given  in  ver.  12. 

Ver.  33.  As  they  were  able  seems  to  imply  that  the  failure  to  learn 
was  in  no  degree  owing  to  any  restraint  on  Jesus'  part,  but  wholly  to 
the  dullness  of  the  hearers.  If  this  distinction  be  really  present  there 
is  the  same  double  redaction  as  in  vers.  10-25. 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  53 


JESUS'  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  DIVINE  POWER  ARE 
FRUITLESS  AGAINST  ISRAEL'S  UNBELIEF 

PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  c.  4:  35 — 7:  13.  Jesus'  power  to  control  the 
forces  of  evil  was  made  apparent  in  a  whole  series  of  wonders, 
from  quelling  storms  to  raising  the  dead.  Yet  among  his 
own  kindred  and  people  he  met  only  an  unbelief  such  as 
obtains  no  great  manifestation  from  God.  This,  however, 
did  not  prevent  his  teaching  everywhere,  and  sending  forth 
the  Twelve  with  the  message  of  repentance. 

4: 35-41.  When  he  was  returning  with  the  Twelve  by 
boat  from  the  place  where  he  had  taught  in  parables,  and  lay 
asleep,  a  storm  roused  by  demonic  power  filled  the  disciples 
with  fear  and  threatened  to  sink  the  boat.  But  Jesus  being 
awakened  quelled  the  tumult  of  wind  and  wave  by  a  command 
of  Silence  to  the  powers  of  evil. 

5:  1-20.  Arrived  on  the  Decapolis  shore,  as  he  came 
from  the  boat  one  rushed  to  meet  him  out  of  the  tombs,  naked 
and  frenzied,  and  fell  at  his  feet  in  humble  obeisance,  ac- 
knowledging him  by  name  as  "the  Son  of  the  Most  High 
God."  When  Jesus  asked,  What  is  thy  name  ?  there  came  a 
cry,  We  are  legion  {for  the  man  was  indeed  under  control  of  a 
vast  multitude  of  unclean  spirits),  and  an  entreaty  to  Jesus 
that  he  would  not  torment  them,  because  he  had  bidden  them 
go  forth  out  of  the  man.  They,  therefore,  besought  not  to  be 
sent  out  of  the  country,  but  to  be  permitted  rather  to  possess  a 
great  herd  of  swine,  which  was  feeding  near  by.  Permission 
given,  the  demons  left  the  man  and  entered  the  bodies  of  the 
swine,  but  did  not  escape  the  fate  they  dreaded;  for  the  herd 
of  swine  obsessed  by  the  demons  rushed  into  the  sea  and  was 
drowned.  The  report  of  this  occurrence  by  the  keepers  of  the 
swine  and  the  story  of  the  restored  victim  of  the  demons 
became  the  means  of  a  spread  of  Jesus'  fame  through  all  De- 
capolis. 

Vers.  21-43.  Returning  to  Capernaum  Jesus  showed  his 
miraculous  power  in  two  further  healings.  A  ruler  of  the 
synagogue  applied  for  his  aid  in  behalf  of  his  little  daughter 
lying  at  the  point  of  death.  On  the  way  to  the  ruler's  house  a 
woman  in  the  crowd  which  thronged  him  sought  healing  of 
her  malady  by  laying  hold  of  Jesus'  garment.  But  he  per- 
ceived that  healing  power  had  passed  out  from  his  person, 


54  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

and  turning  drew  from  the  woman  a  confession  of  the  healing 
she  had  experienced.  Meantime  messengers  reported  from 
the  ruler's  house  his  daughter's  death.  But  Jesus  would  not 
suffer  dissuasion.  Entering  with  three  disciples  and  the 
parents  where  the  young  child  lay,  he  took  her  by  the  hand 
and  restored  her  to  life,  but  forbade  the  making  known  of 
the  miracle. 

6:  1-6.  As  he  thus  came  to  his  native  town  the  fame  of  his 
teaching  and  mighty  works  preceded  him.  But  here  he  found 
occasion  to  quote  the  proverb,  "A  prophet  is  not  without  honor 
save  in  his  own  country  and  among  his  own  kin."  Only  a 
few  healings  could  be  wrought.  For  lack  of  faith  among  the 
people  themselves  Jesus  could  do  no  great  wonder.  He  him- 
self marveled  at  their  unbelief. 

6:  7-13.  Having  thus  prepared  the  Twelve  for  both  preach- 
ing and  healing  in  the  power  of  faith,  Jesus  sent  them  out  two 
and  two,  charging  them  how  they  should  conduct  themselves 
as  worthy  heralds  of  the  kingdom.  They  therefore  fulfilled 
their  mission,  preaching  repentance,  exorcising  demons,  and 
healing  the  sick. 


SUBDIVISION  C    4: 35—6: 6,  7-13.— CRITICISM 

The  group  of  incidents  which  follow  upon  the  Teaching  in  Parables 
have  the  same  relation  to  it  in  R's  intention  as  the  series  of  ten  "mighty- 
works"  which  in  Mt.  8, 9  follow  upon  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Just 
as  in  Mt.  11,  12,  these  are  followed  by  a  series  of  illustrations  how  the 
Jews  were  only  "stumbled"  and  hardened  in  opposition,  although 
accorded  teachings  and  signs  which  had  they  been  given  to  "the 
Ninevites,"  "Tyre  and  Sidon,"  or  even  "in  Sodom,"  "they  would  have 
remained  until  this  day,"  so  in  Mk.  6:  1-6  the  series  of  wonders  cul- 
minates with  Jesus'  rejection  by  his  own  city  and  kindred  while  he 
"marveled  at  their  unbelief." 

This  application  made  by  R  of  the  incidents  of  4:  35 — 5:  56  is  not, 
however,  that  for  which  the  group  would  seem  to  have  been  originally 
constructed.  We  must  set  one  side  the  story  of  the  Gerasene  De- 
moniac,1 wherein  the  proclamation  of  Jesus  as  "the  Lord"2  in  De- 
capolis  is  purposely  contrasted  with  the  silence  imposed  in  "his  own 
country,"  and  whose  relation  to  R's  special  theory  of  demonic  recog- 
nition has  already  been  explained.3  But  with  this  exception  all  the 
incidents  of  4:  35 — 5:  56  center  upon  some  inculcation  of  the  wonder- 
working power  of  faith,  and  thus  form  the  most  suitable  possible  pre- 
amble (after  the  parables  of  the  kingdom)  to  the  sending  out  of  the 
Twelve  "to  preach  and  to  have  authority  to  cast  out  devils."  If  we 
may  anticipate  later  demonstration4  by  the  conjecture  that  the  original 
position  of  the  Healing  of  the  Epileptic,5  now  certainly  misplaced, 
was  that  where  R  has  inserted  the  Rejection  in  Nazareth,8  this  motive 


»  5:  1-20.  2  See  note  on  5:  19.  3  See  on  1:  24.  *  See  on  9:  14-29. 

5  9:  14-29.  86:l-6. 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  55 

will  be  doubly  apparent;  for  the  whole  point  of  the  story  of  the  Epileptic 
is  the  increasing  of  the  disciples'  faith  till  they  no  longer  find  anything 
too  hard  for  them.1 

Once  we  permit  ourselves  to  be  guided  by  this  clew  of  the  lesson 
of  faith  we  cannot  help  noticing  the  affinity  of  the  narratives  now  in 
question  with  those  at  the  beginning  of  the  P  narrative, 2  not  merely  in 
respect  to  the  faith-motive,  but  as  respects  the  graphic  and  geographic 
detail.  Simon's  fishing-boat,  the  lake-shore,  and  Capernaum  furnish 
as  before  the  simple  staging.  The  crowd  in  the  street  and  at  the  house 
of  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  is  depicted  in  the  same  lifelike  manner  as 
in  the  scene  of  the  paralytic  let  down  from  the  roof  into  the  crowd 
around  Simon's  door.  Jesus  lies  asleep  on  the  helmsman's  cushion  in 
the  boat,  wearied  out,  as  we  hear  of  his  sleepless  night  after  the  sabbath 
in  Capernaum.  Traces  of  the  embellishing  hand  of  R  are  doubtless 
distinctly  apparent,  especially  in  4:  39  and  5:  30,  and  we  may  reason- 
ably attribute  the  story  of  the  Legion  of  devils  and  the  Swine  to  some 
floating  tradition  elaborated  by  R  on  the  model  of  the  exorcism  in 
Philippi3;  but  it  would  be  unreasonable  not  to  admit  the  close  connec- 
tion of  the  remainder  of  4:  35 — 5:  56  with  the  "Petrine"  tradition 
traceable  in  1: 14;  2:  12. 


>  See  Mt.  17:  19,  20=  Lk.  17:  5,  6.  2  1:  14—2:  12.  3  Acts  16:  16-18. 


56  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        4:35-39 


35  A  ND  on  that  day,  when  even  was  come, 
I*,    he  saith  unto  them,  Let  us  go  over 

36  unto  the  other  side.  And  leaving  the 
multitude,  they  take  him  with  them,  even 
as  he  was,  in  the  boat.     And  other  boats 

37  were  with  him.  And  there  ariseth  a  great 
storm  of  wind,  and  the  waves  beat  into 
the    boat,    ^insomuch  that  the  boat  was 

38  now  filling.fj  And  he  himself  was  in  the 
stern,  asleep  on  the  cushion:  and  they 
awake  him,  and   say   unto  him,  2Master, 

39  carest  thou  not  that  we  perish?     And  he 

1  Var.  omit  [].  2Or,  Teacher. 


Vers.35-ll=Mt. 
8:  18-27=Lk. 
8:22-25 

R(P) 
Cf.  6:  45-49 


R  (cf.  1:  25) 


4:  35-41.  Quelling  the  Storm.  In  the  evangelist's  intention  (ver. 
41)  this  is  a  demonstration  of  Jesus'  superhuman  nature  (cf.  2:  56-10). 
The  tempest  is  conceived  as  the  work  of  a  malignant  spirit,  doubtless 
"the  Prince  of  the  power  of  the  air"  (Eph.  2:2).  Hence  the  "rebuke" 
in  the  same  terms  as  to  the  "unclean  spirits"  (ver.  39.  Gr.,  "silence; 
be  muzzled";  cf.  1:  25).  Alongside  of  this  rebuke,  however,  and  un- 
connected with  it,  stands  another  (Matthew  inverts  the  order  of  the 
two),  wherein  almost  the  reverse  conception  is  implied.  The  disciples' 
frightened  appeal  to  Jesus  is  an  evidence  that  they  "have  not  yet 
faith."  They  should  have  trusted  God.  The  two  points  of  view  are 
mutually  exclusive,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  determine  which  is  the 
earlier.  R  transforms  a  lesson  from  Jesus  of  faith  in  God  justified  by 
the  event,  into  something  very  near  a  lesson  of  faith  in  Jesus  as  God, 
demonstrated  by  superhuman  power.  If,  adopting  the  hint  from 
Matthew,  we  substitute  ver.  40  in  place  of  39a,  we  shall  probably  be 
not  far  from  the  primitive  form.  Vers.  39a  and  41  will  then  be  addi- 
tions of  R,  who  also  transposes  39&  and  40. 

Vers.  35,  36  (R).  Neither  Matthew  nor  Luke  retains  Mark's  de- 
scriptive setting,  which  reverts  to  4:1.  On  the  contrary,  Matthew 
establishes  a  new  one  from  Q  (Mt.  8: 19-22  =  Lk.  9:57-62)  having 
relation  to  the  renunciations  of  various  disciples  won  to  follow  Jesus. 
We  are  reminded  that  our  last  trace  of  the  story  which  centered  in 
Capernaum  (P)  was  as  Jesus  "went  forth  again  along  the  lake-shore, 
and  as  he  passed  by"  called  Levi  son  of  Alphgeus  from  the  custom- 
house, who  straightway  "followed  him."  Also  that  the  introduction  of 
the  Opposition  (2:  15—3:  6),  Choice  of  the  Twelve  (3:  7-35),  and 
Teaching  in  Parables  gave  evidence  of  copious  borrowings  from  Q, 
the  motives  of  the  successive  attachments  (as,  e.g.,  the  Teaching  in 
Parables,  at  the  point  where  Q  gave  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount)  being 
largely  apologetic.  We  may  therefore  reasonably  adopt  the  hint  of 
Matthew  and  regard  the  scene  of  vers.  35,  36  as  in  the  nature  of  a 
return  to  that  of  2:  13,  14. 

Ver.  37.  Storm  of  wind  (Gr.,  "a  great  squall").  Matthew  alters  to 
"  tempest,"  increasing  the  wonder,  but  departing  from  the  situation 
characteristic  of  the  lake. 

Ver.  38.  The  cushion,  i.e.,  the  one  usually  to  be  found  at  the  helms- 
man's seat.  Carest  thou  not?  The  reproach  is  cancelled  in  the  later 
Gospels. 

Ver.  39&  (cf.  Jon.  1:11,  12,  Greek  version).    The  prompt  passing  of 


4: 40— 5*  3 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


57 


awoke,  and  rebuked  the  wind,  and  said 
*[unto  the  sea],  Peace,  be  still.  And  the 
wind  ceased,  and  there  was  a  great  calm. 

40  And    he   said   unto    them,    Why    are   ye 

41  fearful?  have  ye  not  yet  faith?  And 
they  feared  exceedingly,  and  said  one  to 
another,  Who  then  is  this,  that  even  the 
wind  and  the  sea  obey  him? 

5  And  they  came  to  the  other 

side  of  the  sea,  into  the  country  of  the 

2  2Gerasenes.  And  when  he  was  come  out 
of  the  boat,  straightway  there  met  him 
3[out  of  the  tombs]  a  man  with  an  unclean 

3  spirit,  who  had  his  dwelling  in  the  tombs: 
and  no  man  could  any  more  bind  him, 


1  p  var.  Rebuked  the  wind  and  sea,  and  said. 

2  Var.  Gadarenes;  Origen  and  Sinaitic  Syriac,  Gergesenes. 
8  Sinaitic  Syriac  omits  [  ]. 


5:  1-30= Mt.  8: 
28-34=Lk.  8: 
26-39 
R 


the  squall  belongs  to  the  nature  of  such  atmospheric  disturbances,  but 
the  incident  is  recalled  as  one  of  the  triumphs  of  Jesus'  faith.  Even 
if  we  trace  no  causal  relation  between  this  and  the  providential  passing 
of  the  storm,  and  admit  that  his  undaunted  example  had  no  more  to 
do  with  the  disciples'  surmounting  of  the  immediate  peril  than  had 
Caesar's  belief  in  his  destiny  in  similar  circumstances  on  the  Adriatic, 
or  Paul's  in  God's  purpose  (Acts  27:21-25;  cf.  Phil.  1:25),  the  in- 
cident was  pre-eminently  worthy  of  record  as  a  manifestation  of  that 
spirit  of  Jesus  which  once  infused  into  his  followers  gave  them  their 
conquest  of  the  world.  To  change  this  faith  in  God  into  a  mere  power 
to  silence  storms,  or  even  walk  on  the  sea,  is  to  misunderstand  the  real 
victory  of  faith  in  Gethsemane  and  Calvary  (II  Cor.  12:  9;  13:  4).  The 
addition  of  vers.  39a,  41  unfortunately  tends  to  this  result. 

5:  1-20.  The  Gerasene  Demoniac.  If  Mark  had  a  written  basis  for 
this  anecdote  it  can  hardly  have  formed  part  of  the  present  group,  all 
the  rest  of  which  are  primarily  concerned  with  the  lesson  of  faith. 
Here  the  chief  concern  is  with  Jesus'  wonderful  power  over  demons, 
explicitly  confessed  by  themselves,  and  demonstrated  by  the  suicide 
of  a  legion  of  them  who  had  sought  refuge  in  the  bodies  of  two  thousand 
swine!  The  point  of  view  is  so  characteristically  that  of  R  (cf.  1:  13, 
23-25,  34,  39;  3:  11,  12,  15;  4:  39;  9:  29)  that  even  if  we  suppose  some 
remote  basis  of  traditional  fact  it  is  scarcely  recognizable.  Even  the 
geography  shows  R's  remoteness  from  the  actual  scenes.  "Gerasa" 
(ver.  1)  cannot  be  altered  to  more  or  less  like-sounding  names  of 
hamlets  on  the  east  shore,  because  vers.  14  and  20  show  that  _  R 
means  the  "city"  of  this  name,  which  was  indeed  "the  largest  city 
of  Decapolis,"1  but  was  two  hard  days'  journey  distant  from  the 
lake.  Matthew's  substitution  of  "Gadara"  is  merely  a  reduction  of 
the  doubly  impossible  to  the  impossible.  Later  mss.  of  Mark  follow 
suit.  Origen  introduced  an  ingenious  conjecture  based  on  the  Old 
Testament  (see  var.). 

1  Josephus,  War  III,  ix.  7. 


58 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


5:4-12 


4  no,  not  with  a  chain;  ^because  that  he 
had  been  often  bound  with  fetters  and 
chains,  and  the  chains  had  been  rent 
asunder  by  him,  and  the  fetters  broken  in 
pieces:  and  no  man  had  strength  to  tame 

5  him.  And  always,  night  and  day,]  in  the 
tombs  and  in  the  mountains,  he  was  crying 
out,    and    cutting    himself    with    stones. 

6  And  when  he  saw  Jesus  from  afar,  he  ran 

7  and  worshipped  him;  and  crying  out  with 
a  loud  voice,  he  saith,  What  have  I  to  do 
with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  the  Most 
High  God?     I  adjure  thee  by  God,  torment 

8  me  not.  For  he  said  unto  him,  Come 
forth,  thou  unclean  spirit,  out  of  the  man. 

9  And  he  asked  him,  What  is  thy  name? 
And  he  saith  unto  him,  My  name  is  Legion; 

10  for  we  are  many.     And  he  besought  him 
much  that  he  would  not  send  them  away 

11  out  of  the  country.     Now  there  was  there 
on  the  mountain  side  a  great  herd  of  swine 

12  feeding.     And  they  besought  him,  saying, 
Send  us  into  the  swine,  that  we  may  enter 

1  /3  var.  have  a  different  form  for  [  ],  improving  the  grammar. 


1:24,  34;  3:  11, 
12;  cf.  Acts  16: 
16 


Vers.  1-7.  In  his  description  of  the  maniac's  history  and  condition 
R  is  led  to  anticipate  his  story.  Hence  the  explanatory  supplements 
in  vers.  8-10.  The  cry  of  the  maniac  when  he  saw  Jesus  is  first  related 
in  conjunction  with  the  habitual  conduct  described  in  ver.  5.  After- 
ward we  learn  in  a  series  of  explanatory  imperfects  that  the  cry  had 
been  led  up  to  by  a  command  from  Jesus  to  the  unclean  spirit  to  be- 
gone (ver.  8) ;  and  this  in  turn  by  a  question  put  by  Jesus,  supposably 
when  the  man  "ran  and  did  him  obeisance,"  which  was  answered  in  a 
way  to  make  clear  the  victim's  condition  (vers.  9,  10).  This  awkward 
method  of  narration  needlessly  produces  the  appearance  of  a  negotia- 
tion of  the  evil  spirits  with  Jesus  for  terms  of  surrender,  after  his 
original  command  has  been  disobeyed.  Son  of  the  Most  High  God. 
A  rare  divine  title  (see  on  1:  24  and  cf.  Lk.  6:  35;  Acts  16:  17).  Tor- 
ment me  not.  It  is  the  unclean  spirit  (ver.  2)  who  speaks.  Jesus  is 
supposed  able  to  inflict  the  torrmnts  of  hell.  Matthew  explains  by 
adding  "before  the  time"  (i.e.,  of  judgment,  Rev.  20:  3,  10,  14) ;  Luke 
by  substituting  in  ver.  10  "into  the  abyss." 

_  Ver.  9.  My  name  is  Legion?  for  we  are  many.  The  change  from 
singular  to  plural  indicates  only  the  composite  nature  of  the  "spirit" 
(ver.  2),  not  of  the  man  plus  the  spirit  or  spirits.  "Legion"  suggests  the 
number  of  the  pack  in  round  terms,  as  "many."  In  ver.  13  two  thou- 
sand swine  are  each  afflicted  with  at  least  one  demon. 

Ver.  10.  Out  of  the  country.  Demons  are  supposed  to  haunt  the 
desert  when  unable  to  find  a  more  inviting  abode  in  the  person  of  the 
possessed.     Cf.  Mt.  12:  43-45  =  Lk.  11:  24-26. 


5s 13-20 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


59 


13  into  them.  And  *he  gave  them  leave. 
And  the  unclean  spirits  came  out,  and 
entered  into  the  swine:  and  the  herd 
rushed  down  the  steep  into  the  sea,  (in 
number)  about  two   thousand;   and  they 

14  were  choked  in  the  sea.  And  they  that 
fed  them  fled,  and  told  it  in  the  city,  and 
in  the   country.     And  they   came  to  see 

15  what  it  was  that  had  come  to  pass.  And 
they  come  to  Jesus,  and  behold  2him  that 
was  possessed  with  devils  sitting,  clothed 
and  in  his  right  mind,  3[(even)  him  that  had 

16  the  legion:]  and  they  were  afraid.  And 
they  that  saw  it  declared  unto  them  how 
it  befell  him  that  was  possessed  with  devils, 

17  and  concerning  the  swine.  And  they  be- 
gan to  beseech  him  to  depart  from  their 

18  borders.  And  as  he  was  entering  into  the 
boat,  he  that  had  been  possessed  with 
devils  besought  him  that  he  might  be  with 

19  him.  And  he  suffered  him  not,  but  saith 
unto  him,  Go  to  thy  house  unto  thy  friends, 
and  tell  them  how  great  things  4the  Lord 
hath   done   for   thee,  and    (how)    he   had 

20  mercy  on  thee.  And  he  went  his  way, 
and  began  to   publish  in  Decapolis  how 


1  /3  var.  immediately  the  Lord  Jesus  sent  them  into  the  swine. 

2  Or,  the  demoniac.  3  /3  var.  omit  [  ].  4  P  var.  God. 


Ver.  13.  Entered  into  the  swine.  Those  who  care  to  inquire  what 
visible  manifestation  R  has  here  in  mind,  may  observe  that  words  and 
actions  of  the  "possessed"  are  regularly  spoken  of  as  actions  of  the 
demon  (3:  11,  12).  Critics  who  trace  a  historical  nucleus  to  the  story 
generally  assume  that  at  this  point  the  maniac  took  the  further  dis- 
posal of  the  unwelcome  tenants  of  his  personality  literally  into  his 
own  hands  by  driving  the  swine  into  the  water. 

Ver.  14.  In  the  city,  i.e.,  Gerasa.  Mark  carefully  distinguishes 
"cities"  from  "towns,"  "villages,"  and  "hamlets."  Gerasa  was  at 
this  time  already  the  largest  of  the  Greek  cities  east  of  Jordan.  In 
ver.  20  the  relation  of  this  event  to  the  spread  of  the  gospel  in  Decapolis 
is  made  similar  to  that  of  ^Eneas  in  Lydda  and  the  plain  of  Sharon 
(Acts  9:  32-35). 

Ver.  19.  A  noteworthy  contrast  to  the  strict  injunctions  of  silence 
west  of  Jordan.  Note  that  in  these  "cities  of  the  Gentiles"  R's  reason 
for  the  hiding  of  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  (4:  12)  does  not  apply. 
Mt.  10:  5,  23  expressly  prohibits  the  evangelization  here  commanded. 
The  Lord.  There  is  a  remarkable  avoidance  of  this  title  in  Mark  up  to 
the  Triumphal  Entry  (11:3).  Only  here  and  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Gentile  Syro- Phoenician  (7:  28)  does   it   appear,   although  it  is  pre- 


60  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        5$  21-23 


great  things  Jesus  had  done  for  him:  and 
all  men  did  marvel. 

21  And  when  Jesus  had  crossed 
over  *[again  in  the  boat]  unto  the  other 
side,  a  great  multitude  was  gathered  unto 

22  him:  *[and  he  was  by  the  sea.]  And 
there  cometh  one  of  the  rulers  of  the  syna- 
gogue, x[Jairus  by  name;]   and  seeing  him, 

23  he  falleth  at  his  feet,  and  beseecheth  him 
much,  saying,  My  little  daughter  is  at  the 
point  of  death:  X[(I  pray  thee,)  that  thou] 
come  and  lay  thy  hands  on  her,  that  she 

1  £  var.  omit  [  ]  in  vers.  21-24. 


5:22-43=Mt.  9: 
18-26=Lk.  8: 
40-56 
P 


eminently  R's  own  designation  (1:3;  12:36,  37;  cf.  ver.  13,  /?  var.), 
and  might  have  been  used  everywhere  to  render  the  common  title 
Rabbi,  or  Rabboni,  as  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  phenomenon  is 
probably  connected  with  R's  partiality  for  the  Gentiles.  Luke  here 
substitutes  "God."  If  Mark  has  an  older  basis  for  ver.  19,  Luke  cer- 
tainly represents  here  the  more  primitive  sense  if  not  the  more  primi- 
tive form  also.    But  see  var. 

5:  21-43.  Healing  of  Jairus'  Daughter  and  the  "Woman  with  the 
Issue.  The  interweaving  of  two  incidents  is  quite  a  characteristic 
feature  of  this  Gospel  (e.g.,  3:  20-35;  14:  1-11),  but  in  the  present  case 
there  is  no  such  artificiality  as  characterizes  R's  work.  The  two  ele- 
ments are  perfectly  in  harmony  and  seem  to  reflect  real  coincidence  in 
occurrence.  In  both  cases  the  moral  pointed  (vers.  34,  36)  is  the  lesson 
of  faith  in  God.  As  already  noted  in  the  case  of  the  Storm  on  the  Lake 
(vers.  396,  40;  cf.  39a,  41),  this  is  not  so  much  R's  point  of  view  (ver. 
30,  note)  as  that  of  the  underlying  material;  we  may  therefore  reason- 
ably regard  the  group  as  original.  The  scene  opens  "by  the  sea," 
where  we  were  left  in  the  last  of  the  faith  narratives  (4:  35-41). 

We  have  indeed  no  need  to  attribute  to  the  original  narrator  the 
magical  notion  of  healing  power  flowing  through  Jesus'  garments 
expressed  in  ver.  30  (cf.  Acts  19:  12);  but  there  is  strong  reason  to 
think  (see  note  on  6:  14)  that  from  the  first,  in  spite  of  the  distinction 
implied  in  Jesus'  utterance  (ver.  39),  the  healing  of  Jairus'  daughter 
was  regarded  by  the  disciples  as  an  actual  resuscitation  from  the  dead. 
To  some  this  appears  an  objection  to  regarding  the  story  as  substan- 
tially in  its  present  form  the  report  of  an  eye-witness.  Those  who 
take  such  ground  can  hardly  have  reflected  that  an  eye-witness  of 
the  restoration  of  Eutychus  to  consciousness  (Acts  20:  7-12)  regards 
that  as  a  case  of  resuscitation  from  real  death. 

Ver.  21  (R)  reverts  to  the  situation  "by  the  sea"  of  2:13  (3:7); 
4:1,  35-41. 

Ver.  22.  One  of  the  synagogue  rulers  [ Jairus  by  name].  A  magnate 
(Mt.,  "ruler")  of  Capernaum.  The  western  text  seems  to  indicate  that 
the  name  is  a  later  addition.  The  strained  relations  between  Jesus 
and  the  class  Jairus  (i.e.,  "Jair";  cf.  Num.  32:41;  Jud.  10:3)  repre- 
sents indicate  how  urgent  was  the  pressure  upon  the  father's  heart, 
overcoming  the  resistance  of  his  household  (vers.  35,  40),  as  well  as 
the  prejudices  of  his  social  equals.  Falleth  at  his  feet.  The  narrator 
emphasizes  the  self-humiliation  of  the  great  man  (cf.  Acts  10:  25). 


4: 24-34 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


61 


24  may  *[be  made  whole,  and]  live.  And  he 
went  with  him;  and  a  great  multitude 
followed  him,  and  they  thronged  him. 

25  And  a  woman,  which  had  an  issue  of 

26  blood  twelve  years,  and  had  suffered  many 
things  of  many  physicians,  and  had  spent 
all  that  she  had,  and  was  nothing  bettered, 

27  but  rather  grew  worse,  having  heard  the 
things  concerning  Jesus,  came  in  the 
crowd  behind,  and  touched  his  garment. 

28  For  she  said,  If  I  touch  but  his  garments, 

29  I  shall  be  made  whole.  And  straightway 
the  fountain  of  her  blood  was  dried  up; 
and  she  felt  in  her  body  that  she   was 

30  healed  of  her  2plague.  And  straightway 
Jesus,  perceiving  in  himself  that  the  power 
(proceeding)  from  him  had  gone  forth, 
turned  him  about  in  the  crowd,  and  said, 

31  Who  touched  my  garments?  And  his  dis- 
ciples said  unto  him,  Thou  seest  the  multi- 
tude thronging  thee,  and  say  est  thou,  Who 

32  touched  me?     And  he  looked  round  about 

33  to  see  her  that  had  done  this  thing.  But 
the  woman  fearing  and  trembling,  know- 
ing what  had  been  done  to  her,  came  and 
fell  down  before  him,  and  told  him  all  the 

34  truth.  And  he  said  unto  her,  Daughter, 
thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole;  go  in 
peace,  and  be  whole  of  thy  4plague. 


1  /3  var.  omit  [  ].  2  Gr.  scourge. 

3  0  var.  add  because  she  had  done  it  by  stealth. 
*  Gr.  scourge. 


Vers.  25-27.  The  description  of  the  woman's  condition  with  its 
seven  (!)  consecutive  participles  is  an  example  of  R's  awkwardness 
in  employing  his  stores  of  descriptive  material  (cf.  5:  3-10;  9:  17-27). 

Vers.  29-31.  The  language  "by  the  sea,"  "scourge,"  "thronging," 
"touched  my  garments"  indicates  that  we  have  here  the  source  of 
R's  description  in  3:  7-10. 

Ver.  30.  Perceiving,  etc.  R  explains  Jesus'  turning  about  as  due  to 
a  mysterious  feeling  of  the  issue  of  healing  power.  Luke  (8:  46)  ac- 
tually places  in  Jesus'  mouth  the  statement,  "I  perceived  that  power 
had  gone  forth  from  me."  Matthew  relates  simply  that  Jesus  "turned 
and  saw  her,"  whether  fortuitously  or  because  he  felt  the  grasp  upon 
the  "tassel"  (so  Matthew)  of  his  cloak. 

Ver.  34.  Daughter  (cf.  2:  5,  "son").  Thy  faith  hath  healed  thee.  A 
great  saying,  whose  echoes  reverberate  far  (cf.  10:  52;  Lk.  7:  50;  17: 
19;  18:  42).    The  object  is  to  counteract  the  disposition  to  see  in  the 


62 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        5:35-40 


35  While  he  yet  spake,  they  come  from  the 
ruler  of  the  synagogue's  (house),  saying, 
Thy  daughter  is  dead:  why  troublest  thou 

36  the  *Master  any  further  ?  But  Jesus, 
2not  heeding  the  word  spoken,  saith  unto 
the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  Fear  not,  only 

37  believe.  And  he  suffered  no  man  to 
follow  with  him,  save  Peter,  and  James, 

38  and  John  the  brother  of  James.  And 
they  come  to  the  house  of  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue;  and  he  beholdeth  a  tumult, 
and  (many)  weeping  and  wailing  greatly. 

39  And  when  he  was  entered  in,  he  saith  unto 
them,  Why  make  ye  a  tumult,  and  weep? 

40  the  child  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth.  And 
they    laughed    him    to    scorn.      But    he, 


1  Or,  Teacher. 


2  Or,  overhearing. 


event  a  "holy  coat"  miracle  instead  of  a  true  "faith"  cure.  Jesus' 
protest  against  the  idea  of  relic-healing  is  not  due  to  miraculous 
superiority  to  his  age  in  scientific  knowledge  of  the  therapeutic  value  of 
suggestion,  but  simply  to  his  religious  sanity.  Realizing  the  super- 
stitious inferences  which  would  be  drawn  from  the  occurrence,  and 
which  actually  are  drawn  by  R  (vers.  28,  29),  as  well  as  by  other  New 
Testament  writers  (Acts  19:  11,  12),  Jesus  interposes  with  simple 
dignity  a  direction  to  the  true  Object  of  faith  and  Source  of  healing 
power. 

Ver.  35.  They  come.  Mark's  indefinite  pronoun.  The  members  of 
the  household  under  the  form  of  courtesy  ("why  troublest  thou")  seek 
to  prevent  the  coming  of  an  unwelcome  guest.  It  was  worse  than 
undignified  for  a  "ruler  of  the  synagogue"  to  have  appealed  for  help 
to  the  carpenter-healer,  the  "friend  of  publicans  and  sinners." 

Ver.  36.  If  we  follow  the  text  rather  than  margin,  the  disregard  of 
the  message  will  be  due  to  realization  of  its  veiled  hostility.  Against 
the  attempt  of  Jairus'  household  to  dissuade  him,  Jesus  appreciates  and 
encourages  the  man's  faith.  The  utterance  of  ver.  39  shows  that  he 
does  not  accept  the  pessimistic  statement  of  the  messengers. 

Ver.  37.  Peter  and  James  and  John.  The  trio  of  martyr-apostles 
(10:39;  Jn.  13:36;  21:  18,  19).  The  only  two  further  instances  in 
which  the  group  appears  are  at  the  Transfiguration  and  in  Gethsemane. 
Here  the  conflict  with  death  probably  suggests  to  R  the  special  selec- 
tion. In  the  original  Jesus  will  have  gone  unaccompanied  by  any 
disciples. 

Ver.  38.  A  tumult  and  weeping  and  wailing.  Evidences  of  distress 
at  the  supposed  death  of  the  child  which  has  just  occurred.  Matthew, 
who  represents  the  "ruler"  as  appealing  to  Jesus  after  the  child  was 
already  dead  (!),  substitutes  "flute-players  and  the  crowd  making  a 
tumult,"  i.e.,  a  funeral  already  in  progress. 

Ver.  39.  The  child  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth.  Jesus  intends  to  make 
a  distinction.  If  it  were  as  sometimes  understood:  "This  is  different 
from  ordinary  death,  because  I  am  about  to  resurrect  the  child,"  the 
utterance  would  be  inexplicable  to  us  (for  Jesus  regards  refusal  to 


5:41,  42  THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  63 


having  put  them  all  forth,  taketh  the 
father  of  the  child  and  her  mother  and 
them  that  were  with  him,  and  goeth  in 

41  where  the  child  was.  And  taking  the 
child  by  the  hand,  he  saith  unto  her, 
1Talitha  cumi;  which  is,  being  interpreted, 

42  Damsel,  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise.  And 
straightway  the  damsel  rose  up,  and 
walked;  for  she  was  twelve  years  old. 
And  they  were  amazed  straightway  with  a 

1  0  var.    Rabbi   lhabita    cumi;    perhaps  a     corruption   from 
Rabitha  (rabitha),  cumi,  i.e.,  Little  maid,  arise. 


accept  the  clearly  manifested  will  of  God  as  impious,  Mt.  4:  7  =  Lk.  4: 
12;  Mk.  14:  41),  and  unintelligible  to  the  hearers.  On  the  assumption 
of  the  strict  accuracy  of  Mark,  who  represents  that  Jesus  when  speaking 
had  not  yet  seen  the  child,  the  distinction  can  only  mean:  "It  is  too 
soon  to  abandon  our  appeal  to  God;  we  have  no  certainty  as  yet  that 
the  departure  of  the  spirit  is  irrevocable."  Such  a  declaration  would 
be  justified  by  the  current  belief  "that  the  soul  lingered  for  three  days 
near  the  body  it  had  left,  in  the  hope  of  returning  to  it;  after  that  the 
body  became  so  changed  that  a  reanimation  was  no  longer  possible."1 
It  is  perhaps  more  reasonable  to  regard  the  words  as  really  spoken 
after  sight  of  the  child,  as  Luke  represents  (Lk.  8:  51,  52).  In  either 
case  the  conviction  in  the  disciples'  mind  that  they  had  witnessed 
a  return  from  the  dead  would  be  a  later  development.  The  true  sig- 
nificance of  the  incident  centers  in  the  saying,  "Fear  not,  only  believe" 
(ver.  36).  From  almost  the  beginning  it  was  seized  upon  as  implying 
a  confidence  on  Jesus'  part  in  his  own  miraculous  power.  It  does  not 
even  imply  the  expectation  of  any  marvel  whatever.  It  exhibits  the 
same  dauntless  confidence  in  the  face  of  death  as  the  incident  of  the 
Storm  on  the  Lake  (4:  40)  and  Gethsemane  (14:  42).  But  the  explana- 
tion that  this  confidence  lies  in  foreknowledge  of  the  event,  or  sense  of 
superhuman  power,  does  unintentional  but  vital  injustice  to  Jesus. 
His  teaching  (Q,  Mt.  10:  29-31  =Lk.  12:  6,  7)  and  example  alike  (e.g., 
9:  14-29)  show  that  the  constant  assurances  and  commands  to  those 
"of  little  faith"  about  him  to  "have  faith  in  God"  rest  upon  the  con- 
viction that  such  trust  as  Jairus  in  the  present  instance  has  just 
manifested  cannot  be  in  vain.  But  this  conviction  does  not  foresee, 
still  less  attempt  to  dictate,  the  event — it  is  faith. 

Ver.  41.  Talitha  cumi.  In  a  few  instances  R  inserts  the  original 
Aramaic  (not  Hebrew)  of  Jesus'  utterances.  The  occasion  is  always 
such  as  lends  special  mystical  significance  to  the  words :  the  prayer  in 
Gethsemane  and  cry  from  the  cross,  the  recall  of  Jairus'  daughter 
from  the  underworld,  and  the  opening  of  the  deaf  ears  in  Decapolis 
(7:  34).  Origen  (ca.  250  a.d.)  reveals  the  popular  feeling  regarding 
such  words  of  power  in  his  assurance  that  it  is  well  known  that  spells 
and  incantations  lose  their  power  if  translated  into  another  language2 
(see  var.). 


1  Abod.  Z.  20b;  Beresh.  Rabba  100;  Vayyik,  R.  18.  Quoted  by  Edersheim, 
Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  II,  p.  325,  and  Enc.  BibL,  s.v.,  "Resurrection  and  Ascen- 
sion Narratives,"  col.  4067,  §  226. 

2  Ctra.  Cels.  V,  xlv. 


64 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY    5:43—6:3 


43  great  amazement.     And  he  charged  them 
much  that  no  man  should  know  this:  and 
he  commanded  that  (something)  should  be 
given  her  to  eat. 
6  And    he    went    out    from 

thence;  and  he  cometh  into  his  own  coun- 

2  try;  and  his  disciples  follow  him.  And 
when  the  sabbath  was  come,  he  began  to 
teach  in  the  synagogue:  and  xmany  hear- 
ing him  were  astonished,  saying,  Whence 
hath  this  man  these  things?  and,  What  is 
the  wisdom  that  is  given  unto  this  man, 
and    (what    mean)    such    2mighty    works 

3  wrought  by  his  hands?    Is  not  this  the 


1  Var.  insert  the. 


2Gr.  powers. 


6:  l-6=Mt.  13: 
53-58=Lk.  4: 
16-30 
R 


Ver.  43.  On  the  command  of  silence  see  note  on  1 :  35-39.  The 
direction  that  (something)  should  be  given  her  to  eat,  whatever  R's 
motive  for  retaining  it,  is  most  reasonably  accounted  for  as  a  true 
touch  of  genuine  historical  tradition. 

6:  1-6.  Jesus'  Rejection  in  his  Native  Place.  Instead  of  the  con- 
cluding incident  of  the  group  in  which  the  disciples  are  taught  the 
lesson  of  faith  (see  on  9:  14-29),  R  attaches  at  this  point  a  develop- 
ment of  the  saying,  "A  prophet  has  no  honor  in  his  own  country,"  to 
explain  the  unbelief  of  Jesus'  fellow-countrymen.  Luke  displays  the 
same  motive  in  still  higher  degree  by  making  this  the  opening  scene 
of  the  ministry  and  adding  prophecies  from  Is.  61:  1,  2;  58:  6  and  inci- 
dents from  I  Kings  17:  9;  18: 1  and  II  Kings  5:  14.  The  result  forms 
an  appropriate  prelude  to  his  double  work.  It  serves  to  show  how  the 
gospel  was  delivered  to  the  Jews,  as  prophecy  required,  but  seeing 
they  put  it  from  them  God's  messengers  turned  to  the  Gentiles.  Mark 
had  previously  built  upon  the  same  basis,  exhibiting  in  the  language 
of  6:  26,  3  ("wisdom  and  mighty  works,"  "stumbled  in  him")  the 
influence  of  the  Q  passage  so  clearly  in  evidence  in  1:  1-13,  40-45; 
2:1-20  (Mt.  11:4-6,  20-24;  12:  38-42  =  Lk.  7:22,  23;  10:13-16; 
11 :  29-32).  The  present  paragraph  and  3:  20,  21,  31-35  being  the  only 
references  in  Mark  to  Jesus'  kindred,  we  may  infer  that  the  Roman 
church  did  not  at  this  time  hold  the  so-called  desposyni  (i.e.,  kindred 
of  Jesus)  in  that  exalted  reverence  which  they  enjoyed  in  Jerusalem 
from  the  earliest  times  (Acts  1:  14;  12:  17;  21:  18;  Gal.  1:  19;  2:  9,  12). 
Note  the  omission  by  Matthew  and  Luke  of  3:  20,  21  and  of  the  clause 
and  his  kindred  from  ver.  4,  and  cf.  Jn.  7:  5. 

6:  1.  His  own  country  (Gr.,  "native  place").  Ancient  patriotism 
attaches  not  to  the  land  but  the  city  (cf.  Acts  21:  39;  Gal.  4:  26;  Phil. 
3:  20).  Nazareth  becomes  accordingly  the  type  of  Israel  in  its  treat- 
ment of  Jesus.  No  traditional  basis  for  the  story  need  be  assumed 
outside  the  saying  (ver.  4),  a  winged  word  common  to  ancient  Chris- 
tian apologetic  (Jn.  4:  44,  Oxyrh.  Logia,  vi)  which  furnishes  all  the 
factors  for  the  representation. 

Ver.  3.  The  carpenter.  Certainly  the  true  reading,  though  declared 
by  Origen  a  wanton  corruption  due  to  Gnostic  hatred  of  the  outward 
embodiment  of  the  Christ.    Matthew  and  Luke,  in  the  same  spirit  as 


6:4-7 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE 


65 


*carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  and  brother 
of  James,  and  Joses,  and  Judas,  and  Simon? 
and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with  us?    And 

4  they  were  offended  in  him.  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  A  prophet  is  not 
without  honour,  save  in  his  own  country, 
and  among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own 

5  house.  And  he  xcould  there 
do  no  2mighty  work,  save  that  he  laid  his 
hands  upon  a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed 

6  them.  And  he  marvelled  because  of  their 
unbelief. 

And  he  went  round  about  the  villages 
teaching. 

7  And  he  called  unto  him  the  twelve,  and 
began  to  send  them  forth  by  two  and  two; 
and  he  gave  them  authority  over  the  un- 


1  Var.  insert  son  of  the. 

2  Later  mss.  alter  in  various  ways,  did  not  many,  would  not,  etc. 


(Mt.  ll:6=Lk. 

7:23) 

(Q) 


(Jn 


(X) 
4:44) 


Vers.  7-13= Mt. 

9:35—10:  16 

=  Lk.  9:  1-5; 

10:  1-12 

Q 


Origen,  substitute  "the  carpenter's  (Joseph's)  son."  A  vital  element 
in  Jesus'  power  over  the  masses  lay  in  his  belonging  to  the  wage- 
earning  class.  The  son  of  Mary.  We  should  expect  "of  Joseph"  had 
Jesus'  father  been  living.  Only  his  "mother  and  brethren'  appear 
here  and  in  3:  31.  More  significant  is  the  absence  of  "father"  from 
the  sayings,  3:35  (cf.  Lk.  11:27);  10:30  (but  "father"  in  10:29). 
Still  R's  conception  of  Jesus'  divine  sonship  (12:  35-37)  may  have 
contributed  to  his  omission  to  mention  Joseph.  Brother  of  James 
(cf.  Gal.  1:  19).  The  notion  that  these  "brethren"  are  not  own  sons 
of  Mary  appears  only  at  a  late  period,  is  advanced  polemically  to  sup- 
port the  dogma  of  Mary's  perpetual  virginity,  and  conflicts  with  the 
expression,  "her  first-born  son"  (Lk.  2:7).  It  is  opposed  by  the  fact 
of  the  invariable  association  of  Jesus'  mother  with  these  in  every 
early  mention. 

Ver.  5.  Could  not.  Matthew  substitutes  "did  not"  (see  var.).  Mark 
is  not  less  concerned  than  Matthew  for  the  superhuman  power  of  Jesus, 
but  is  more  vividly  conscious  of  the  need  to  explain  the  occasional 
failure  of  Christian  healers  in  his  own  time.  It  is  not  permissible  for 
the  healer,  when  disappointed  in  the  results  of  his  efforts,  to  assert 
that  his  attempts  were  not  made  in  good  faith.  He  must  say  frankly, 
I  could  not.  But  he  need  not  assume  responsibility  for  the  failure. 
The  converse  of  the  teaching,  Thy  faith  hath  healed  thee  (5:  34)  is, 
Thy  lack  of  faith  is  to  blame  for  the  failure  to  be  healed;  cf.  9:  14-29, 
where  Mark  (against  Matthew  and  Luke)  attributes  the  lack  of  faith 
to  the  applicants.  A  few  sick  folk.  To  R  quite  too  trifling  a  matter 
for  consideration  as  compared  with  mighty  works. 

6:  7-13.  Epilogue.  Mission  of  the  Twelve.  In  an  abridged  extract 
from  Q  (Mt.  9:  35—10:  16  =  Lk.  9:  1-5;  10:  1-12)  R  concludes  Division 
II,  completing  the  story  of  Jesus'  work  of  preaching  and  healing  in 
Galilee.     The  Q  form  of  the  Charge  still  reflects  the  nature  of  the 


66 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


6:8-13 


8  clean  spirits;  and  he  charged  them  that 
they  should  take  nothing  for  (their)  jour- 
ney, save  a  staff  only;  no  bread,  no  wallet, 

9  no  ^oney  in  their  2purse;  but  (to  go)  shod 
with  sandals:  and,  (said  he,)  put  not  on 

10  two  coats.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Wheresoever  ye  enter  into  a  house,  there 

11  abide  till  ye  depart  thence.  And  whatso- 
ever place  shall  not  receive  you,  and  they 
hear  you  not,  as  ye  go  forth  thence,  shake 
off  the  dust  that  is  under  your  feet  for  a 

12  testimony  unto  them.  And  they  went 
out,  and  preached  that  (men)  should  re- 

13  pent.  And  they  cast  out  many  devils, 
and  anointed  with  oil  many  that  were  sick, 
and  healed  them. 


1  Gr.  brass. 


2  Gr.  girdle. 


original  instruction,  which  simply  applies  the  Jewish  principle  that 
the  teacher  is  entitled  to  all  needful  support  by  those  who  are  taught. 
The  disciples  therefore  will  require  nothing.  Paul  makes  express  quo- 
tation of  the  teaching  (I  Cor.  9:  3-14)  in  this  sense.  Lk.  22:  35  shows 
that  this  confident  reliance  on  Galilean  hospitality  was  justified. 
Mark  has  a  different  application  in  mind.  He  aims  to  limit  the  burden 
which  traveling  evangelists  of  his  own  time  may  impose  upon  the 
churches.  They  may  not  demand  any  equipment  beyond  the  simplest. 
The  variations  are  thus  accounted  for;  but  the  Markan  form  is  clearly 

Ver.  8.  A  staff  only;  Q  (Mt.  10:  10  =  Lk.  9:  3),  "not  even  a  staff." 
Mark  admits  an  article  of  so  small  value  that  even  the  vow  of  poverty 
excepts  it.  In  Q  the  idea  is:  You  need  not  even  procure  a  staff.  Even 
this  will  be  supplied  to  you. 

Ver.  9.  (Go)  shod  with  sandals  (sandalia),  i.e.,  avoid  the  luxury  of 
heavier  footgear.  Matthew-Luke:  "take  no  shoes"  (for  your  hearers 
will  supply  them).  Nor  wear  two  coats — like  the  wealthy,  who  have 
an  inner  and  an  outer  tunic.  Note  the  imperfect  adjustment  of  the 
Greek  of  ver.  9  to  indirect  discourse,  and  cf.  2:  10. 

Ver.  10.  Till  ye  depart  thence,  i.e.,  from  the  town.  Forsaking  the 
humbler  hospitality  of  the  first  host  for  more  luxurious  quarters  is 
a  practice  unworthy  the  true  evangelist. 

Ver.  11.  Shake  off  the  dust  for  a  testimony.  A  gesture  similar  in 
intent  to  washing  the  hands.  For  the  "testimony"  cf.  Q  (Mt.  10:  14,  15 
=  Lk.  10:  10-12),  and  Acts  20:  26,  27.    See  note  on  1:  44. 

Vers.  12,  13.  A  description  of  the  work  done  based  as  much  on 
contemporary  practice  (cf.  Jas.  5:  14)  and  on  Q  (Mt.  10:  7  =  Lk.  9:  2) 
as  on  the  directions  (ver.  7). 

The  Q  source  gave  only  teachings  relating  to  the  work  of  evangeliza- 
tion. Hence  it  continued  with  prediction  of  persecution  quite  incon- 
sistent with  the  experience  in  Galilee  (Mt.  10:  16  =  Lk.  10:  3;  cf.  Lk. 
22:  35).  Matthew  reproduces  the  primitive  form.  Mark  and  Luke 
transform  teaching  into  narratives  of  actual  sending. 


PART  I 
DIVISION  III.     Mfc.  6:  14—8: 26 

THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 
STRUCTURE 

Preliminary  to  the  climax  of  the  Gospel  in  the  Revelation 
of  the  Messiahship  as  a  Doctrine  of  the  Cross,1  which  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  must  form  the  central  theme  of  any  story 
of  Jesus'  career,  and  marks  an  epoch  in  itself,  our  evangelist 
inserts  a  twofold  group  of  incidents  introduced  by  an  ac- 
count of  the  Baptist's  Martyrdom.2  This  martyrdom  of 
John  is  closely  connected  in  his  mind,  as  we  see  from  a 
subsequent  statement,3  with  that  of  Jesus.  It  is  in  fact 
itself  introduced  by  a  reference  to  the  comment  of  the 
murderer  of  John  upon  the  activity  of  Jesus,  elicited  by  the 
same  popular  rumors  which  become  in  8;  27  the  occasion 
for  the  great  Revelation. 

Nevertheless  the  subject  is  not  yet  taken  up  "without 
reserve."4  We  are  not  even  informed  what  came  of  Herod's 
animadversion.  Instead,  Division  III  centers  upon  two 
narratives  of  the  incident  of  the  Feeding  of  the  Multitude, 
each  of  which  is  followed  by  a  Collision  with  the  Scribes, 
and  a  Departure  of  Jesus  into  territory  as  yet  foreign  to  his 
proclamation  of  the  gospel.  The  collision  in  the  former 
case5  concerns  the  Jewish  ceremonial  distinctions  of  clean 
and  unclean,  particularly  regarding  meats,  and  is  followed 
by  Jesus'  promise  to  the  Gentile  woman  of  food  from  the 
children's  table.  In  the  latter  case,6  the  collision  is  over  the 
Sign  from  Heaven,7  and  the  departure  is  marked  by  Jesus' 
warning  against  the  "Leaven  of  the  Pharisees."8  The  heal- 
ings narrated  in  and  after  the  former  group9  have  as  their 
counterpart  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  latter10  a  remark- 
able pair,  whose  significance  will  be  best  understood  by 
reference  to  the  Isaian  prophecy  of  an  unstopping  of  Deaf 
Ears  and  opening  of  Blind  Eyes  destined  to  mark  the  con- 
version of  Israel. 


i  Division  IV.  2  6:  14-29.  3  9:  11-13.  *  8:  32  (Gr.) 

6  6:  53—7:  23.  87  :  24—8:  26. 

7  Connected  in  Jn.  6:  30-59  with  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  token  of 
the  resurrection.  8  8:  14-21.         ■  6:  53-56;  7:  29,  30.  10  7:  24-31;  8:  22-26. 

67 


68  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

The  method  of  pragmatic  values,  applied  to  the  elements 
of  this  agglutination,  makes  it  certain  that  the  focus,  or — as 
we  might  better  say  in  view  of  the  duplication — the  foci  of 
the  whole  consist  of  the  two  accounts  of  the  Feeding  of  the 
Multitude.  These  are  treated  as  the  origin  of  the  Church's 
primitive  institution  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread;  and  thus  as 
symbolically  foreshadowing  that  death  and  resurrection 
by  which  all  men,  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  are  destined  to 
become  sharers  in  the  "bread  of  life." 

The  Division  thus  naturally  falls  into  three  subdivisions: 
(a)  Preliminary  Survey,  6:  14-29,  introducing  the  theme  of 
Jesus'  true  Mission — a  theme  more  fully  developed  in  Division 
IV;  (b)  a  Sign  of  the  Loaves  in  Galilee  and  Withdrawal  to 
Phoenicia,  6 :  30 — 7 :  30 ;  (c)  a  Sign  of  the  Loaves  in  Decapolis 
and  Departure  to  the  kingdom  of  Philip,  7:  31 — 8:  26. 

In  the  case  of  Subdivision  a,  connection  with  the  fore- 
going is  well  established  by  the  distinct  reference  in  Herod's 
Comment1  to  the  "mighty  works"  just  related  in  c.  5.  Very 
significantly  no  account  whatever  is  taken  of  the  Q  extract 
in  the  Mission  of  the  Twelve,2  nor  of  the  R  supplement  in  the 
Rejection  in  Nazareth.3  The  utterance  of  Herod4  is  made 
just  as  if  the  mighty  works,  in  particular  the  work  of  raising 
the  dead,5  had  immediately  preceded.  For,  as  we  shall  see, 
the  legend  of  Elias  redivivus,  which  underlies  the  story  of 
the  Baptist's  Fate6  and  the  Revelation  of  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Cross,7  has  special  reference  to  raising  the  dead.  We 
may  therefore  attribute  at  least  the  nucleus  of  Subdivision 
a  to  the  same  source  as  the  group  of  faith- wonders,  (P).8 

With  the  ultimate  sequel  Subdivision  a  has  equally  good 
connection.  The  theme  Who  is  Jesus?,  begun  in  6 :  14,  is  con- 
tinued verbatim  in  8: 27ff.  Moreover,  Jesus  is  there  in 
exile  and  meditating  a  dangerous  extension  of  his  work  to 
Jerusalem.  True,  as  already  noted,  the  subject  begun  by 
Herod's  Comment9  breaks  off  without  informing  us  what 
difference  it  made  to  Jesus,  an  interruption  which  cannot 
be  original.  We  have  in  fact  in  Lk.  13:31-33  a  wholly 
independent  source,  which  indicates  that  Herod's  threaten- 
ing attitude  really  had  much  to  do  with  the  abrupt  termina- 
tion at  this  period  of  Jesus'  public  work  in  Galilee,  his  re- 
maining for  a  time  in  hiding  or  on  the  frontier,10  and  ulti- 
mately, after  a  secret  visit  to  Capernaum,11  betaking  himself 
to  Judaea  and  Jerusalem.12  Thus  Division  IV  really  takes 
up  the  thread  not  far  from  where  it  is  dropped  by  Subdivision 


J  6: 14.  2  6:7-13.  » 6:  1-6.  *  6:  14.  65;  21-43.  "6:14-29. 

7  8:  27— 9:13.        8  4:  35— 5:43.         96:14.         1°  7:  24.         "9:30.         1210:1. 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD         69 

a.  Moreover,  the  marks  of  ultimate  derivation  from  Peter 
are  again  very  strong  in  the  opening  events  of  Division  IV. 

Subdivisions  6  and  c  have  very  much  less  to  determine 
their  original  connection.  True,  both  lead  over  into  the 
situation  which  we  have  seen  to  be  implied  between  Herod's 
Comment  and  Jesus'  Revelation  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Cross  at  Csesarea  Philippi.  Each  leaves  Jesus  an  exile  on 
the  northern  frontier  of  Galilee,  with  no  road  open  for  future 
activity  save  that  to  Jerusalem.  But  so  far  as  any  motive 
appears  for  his  leaving  Galilee  it  is  only  the  opposition  of 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  to  his  teaching,1  and  is  based  on 
themes  derived  from  Q.2  At  the  beginning  we  can  scarcely 
say  there  is  a  connection.  So  far  as  any  exists  it  is  in  both 
b  and  c  a  mere  adaptation  by  R  of  Q  material.3  Moreover, 
the  historical  content  is  not  suited  to  the  circumstances  of 
Herod's  aroused  attention  and  Jesus'  subsequent  with- 
drawal, but  is  manifestly  placed  here  for  didactic  reasons. 
The  Breaking  of  the  Loaves  is  the  symbolic  prelude  to 
Division  IV,  with  its  Revelation  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Cross.  We  cannot  say  at  just  what  period  of  Jesus'  earlier 
activity  in  Galilee  the  incident  occurred  which  became 
memorable  through  the  building  upon  it  first  of  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Breaking  of  Bread  or  Agape,  a  rite  of  the  early 
Church  dating  back  to  the  days  when  Jesus  and  the  Twelve 
lived  together  as  a  brotherhood/  and  later  of  the  "memo- 
rial" of  the  Eucharist.5  A  more  probable  location  for  it  in 
the  Petrine  tradition  would  be  at  the  point  occupied  in  Mark 
by  the  Teaching  in  Parables.  What  we  can  be  fairly  sure 
of  is  only  that  the  interjection  of  two  parallel  traditions  of 
it  by  Mark  between  the  first  broaching  of  the  theme  of  Jesus' 
true  Personality  and  Mission,6  and  the  later  full  develop- 
ment of  the  same  theme7  is  intended  to  meet  the  practical 
requirements  of  the  Church  teacher,  and  not  those  of  the 
historical  critic. 

The  very  fact,  however,  that  R  is  certainly  combining 
two  parallel  sources  in  Subdivisions  b  and  c,  gives  good  reason 
to  believe  that  in  one  case  at  least  he  is  embodying  elements 
from  the  Petrine  tradition,  the  more  so  as  we  have  found 
a  certain  gap  to  exist  between  the  situation  implied  in 
Herod's  Comment  and  that  implied  in  Division  IV. 
To   imagine    that   R   has   simply   attached  a  consecutive 

1  From  this  statement  we  must  make  the  important  exception  of  8:  15,  a  vestige 
of  the  true  motive. 

2  Mk.  7:  2,  14, 15  resting  on  Lk.  11:  39-54=Mt.  23:  13-31,  and  Mk.  8:  11-13,  15 
resting  on  Lk.  11:  16,  29-32;  12:  1,  54-56=Mt.  12:  38-42;  16:  1-4. 

3  With  6:  30,  31,  cf.  Mt.  11:  29,  and  see  note  ibid.;  7:  31-37  rests  on  Lk.  11:  14= 
Mt.  12:22.         *  Lk.  24:35.  6 1  Cor.  11:24.  "6:14-29.  7  8:27—9:13. 


70  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

group  from  one  source  to  a  consecutive  group  from  the 
other,  like  a  Pentateuchal  compiler,  would  be  to  cherish 
illusions  for  which  we  have  slight  warrant,  especially  as 
common  Q  material  seems  to  be  distributed  in  both.  We 
may,  however,  take  notice  that  the  second  account  of  the 
Sign  of  the  Loaves,1  which  is  on  the  whole  simpler,  unac- 
companied on  the  return  voyage  by  the  marvel  of  the 
Walking  on  the  Sea,  stands  practically  disconnected,  and 
might  equally  well  precede  the  Stilling  of  the  Storm,2  whereas 
its  doublet,3  in  its  opening  words,  overleaps  the  P  material 
in  the  story  of  Herod  and  the  Baptist,4  to  form  connection 
with  the  Q  material  of  the  Mission  of  the  Twelve.5  On  the 
other  hand,  the  incident  of  the  Syro-Phoenician  Woman  has 
points  of  resemblance  to  the  faith- wonder  series  in  c.  5. 
These  features  are  indeed  much  obscured  in  the  modified 
form  which  Mark  has  given  the  story.  In  Mt.  15:21-28 
we  have,  however,  a  form  almost  universally  conceded  to 
be  prior  and  more  authentic.  Here  the  faith  motive  is 
most  emphatic  (ver.  28) .  This  and  the  implied  geographical 
situation6  make  it  reasonable  tentatively  to  connect  this 
incident  with  P,  in  its  present  relative  order. 


THE  FATE  OF  THE  FORERUNNER 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  a.  6:  14-29.  The  mighty  works  of  Jesus  soon 
brought  his  name  into  dangerous  attention  from  Herod.  For 
when  they  heard  of  his  miracles  some  said,  This  is  Elijah  that 
comes  to  restore  all  things  and  to  effect  the  great  repentance 
before  the  day  of  judgment.  Others  said,  It  is  a  prophet  like 
one  of  the  old  time  prophets.  But  Herod  said,  John  the  Baptist 
is  risen  from  the  dead  (as  men  say  of  Elijah)  and  therefore 
these  miracles  are  wrought  through  him. 

For  in  the  mean  time  Herod  had  put  John  to  death,  having 
first  imprisoned  him  for  the  sake  of  Herodias,  the  wife  of  his 
brother  Philip,  whom  he  had  taken  to  wife.  For  John  had 
spoken  to  Herod  declaring  his  sin  to  his  face,  so  that  Herodias 
kept  a  grudge  against  him  and  plotted  against  his  life.  But 
Herod  was  impressed  by  the  word  of  John  and  kept  him  safe 
as  a  holy  man.  Herodias  therefore  took  occasion  of  a  feast 
which  Herod  gave  on  his  birthday  in  the  palace  at  Tiberias, 

18:1-10.  2  4:35-41  (P).  »  6:  30-52.  *  6:!14-29.  «  6:  7-13. 

8  See  note  on  7:  24. 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD         71 

and  sending  in  her  little  daughter  to  dance  in  presence  of  the 
chief  men  of  Galilee,  who  were  Herod's  guests,  the  child  pleased 
Herod,  so  that  he  promised  to  give  her  whatever  she  should  ask 
unto  the  half  of  his  kingdom.  The  child,  therefore,  as  in- 
structed by  her  mother,  demanded  the  head  of  John  upon  a 
platter.  And  the  king,  though  he  was  reluctant,  would  not 
break  his  word,  but  sent  for  a  soldier,  who  beheaded  John  in 
the  prison  and  brought  his  head.  So  the  child  gave  it  to  her 
mother  on  the  platter.  And  John's  disciples  took  up  his 
corpse  and  laid  it  in  a  tomb.  This,  therefore,  was  the  occasion 
of  Herod's  saying  concerning  Jesus. 


SUBDIVISION  A.    6: 14-29.— CRITICISM 

As  in  Divisions  I  and  II,  we  are  now  favored  with  an  anticipatory 
glance  at  the  central  theme  to  which  R  is  leading  up,  Jesus'  true  mis- 
sion is  the  Cross  and  Resurrection.  This  appears  in  8:  27 — 9:  1  and 
9:  11-13.  To  understand  the  bearing  of  the  narratives  destined  to 
follow  in  the  present  Division  the  reader  is  required  to  realize  that  Jesus 
was  well  aware  of  the  secret  plots  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  Herod,1  and 
knew  that  as  John  the  Baptist,  the  Elias  who  had  been  his  forerunner, 
had  suffered,  even  so  also  must  the  Son  of  man  suffer  many  things 
and  be  set  at  nought.2 

In  9:  13  we  have  explicit  reference  to  the  legend  of  Elias,  the  fore- 
runner of  Messiah,  in  a  form  which  shows  it  not  only  to  have  been 
already  current  in  developed  form  similar  to  that  implied  in  Rev.  11: 
3-13,  but  even  current  in  "written"  form.     This  form  at  all  events 

fjredicted  the  martyrdom  of  the  forerunner,3  and  probably  took  the 
ines  of  the  Elias  legend  known  to  us  from  the  Slavonic  Antiquities  of 
Pseudo-Philo,  and  some  other  post-canonical  writings.  In  these,  as 
in  Rev.  11:  3-13,  the  Great  Repentance4  is  effected  by  the  coming  of 
the  "two  witnesses"  of  Messiah,5  Moses  and  Elias,9  who,  after  being 
slain  by  the  tyrant,7  rise  again  from  the  dead.  The  point  of  comparison 
in  Mk.  6:  14  ("therefore  these  miracles")  is  that  in  the  legend  the  agency 
by  which  the  Great  Repentance  is  brought  about  is  the  wonders 
wrought  by  the  "witnesses,"  which  in  some  forms8  culminate  in  the 
raising  of  the  dead.  Luke,  who  cancels  most  of  these  references,  at- 
taches a  sequel  to  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,9  in  which10 
the  plea  that  Israel  will  repent  "if  one  go  to  them  from  the  dead"  is 
answered,  "If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets  (the  written 
witnesses  of  Messiah) ,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  if  one  rise  from 
the  dead."  In  Jn.  1:  21;  5:  33-47;  10:  41  a  similar  rationalizing  atti- 
tude is  taken  toward  these  apocalyptic  expectations  of  the  witnesses 
of  Messiah,  referring  the  promise  to  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets.    In  Mark  we  still  have  clear  traces  of  the  primitive  legend. 

1  See  note  on  8:  15.  2  9:  11-13.  8  See  note  on  9:  13.  *  Mai.  4:  6. 

sZech.  4:  3,  11-14.  •  Rev.  11:5,  6.  7  Rev.  11:7. 

8  So  apparently  in  the  Repentance  of  Jannes  and  Jambres,  quoted  in  II  Tim.  3:  8 
and  by  Pliny  ( Nat.  Hist.,  xxx.  2)  and  Apuleius  (.Apology,  xc)  as  well  as  many  early 
Jewish  and  Christian  writings,  wherein  these  opponents  of  Moses  and  Aaron  are 
worsted  in  the  duel  of  wonders,  and  confess  their  defeat. 

9  Lk.  16:  19-25.  i°  Lk.  16:  26-31. 


72  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

R  not  only  does  all  in  his  power  to  make  Jesus'  baptism  by  John  a 
fulfillment  of  the  anointing  of  the  Messiah  by  Elias,  but  makes  John's 
martyrdom  the  fulfillment  of  the  similar  expectation  regarding  the 
forerunner,1  and  even  hints  at  the  doctrine  of  the  second  coming  of 
Elias,  which  we  find  in  Justin  Martyr.2 

The  present  subdivision  leads  over  to  the  Revelation  of  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Cross.3  R  takes  occasion,  accordingly,  of  his  narration 
of  the  Sign  of  the  Loaves  (to  him  a  symbol  of  the  passion  and  resur- 
rection) to  relate  the  martyrdom  of  the  forerunner.  In  process  of 
this  narration  he  forgets  to  say  what  came  of  Herod's  attention  being 
drawn  to  Jesus,  and  thereby  deprives  us  of  what  may  once  have  been 
the  occasion  for  Jesus'  withdrawal  at  this  time  from  public  activity 
in  Galilee. 

The  account  given  by  R  of  the  Baptist's  fate  is  in  the  highest  degree 
inaccurate  and  legendary.  In  the  P  tradition4  the  reader  had  been 
supposed  to  know  already  about  the  "delivering  up"  of  John.  The 
present  account  assumes  a  situation  wholly  unlike  that  presupposed 
in  the  Q  discourses5  and  comparable  only  to  the  relations  of  Elijah 
with  Ahab  and  Jezebel.  The  prophet  stands  in  presence  of  the  "king" 
and  addresses  rebukes  to  his  face.  The  queen  plots  against  his  life.  The 
situation  conceived  for  John  is  not  the  dungeon  in  far-off  Machaerus, 
which  Josephus  reports,   but  a  cell  within  immediate  reach  of  the 

Ealace  in  Tiberias,  from  whence  the  prisoner  is  brought  once  and  again 
efore  the  king  (and  queen?),  and  ultimately  his  head  on  the  platter. 
This  conception  of  John  as  reasoning  of  righteousness,  temperance, 
and  judgment  to  come,  while  the  "king"  is  terrified  and  puts  him  off 
for  a  convenient  season,  is  almost  certainly  suggested  by  the  story  of 
Paul  in  Acts  24-26.  At  least  it  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  real 
history  of  the  Baptist's  fate.  In  the  specially  depraved  and  inhuman 
traits  exhibited  in  R's  depiction  of  the  adulterous  queen's  revenge  we 
have  a  probable  reflection  of  the  popular  indignation  referred  to  by 
Josephus,  which  attributed  the  disasters  of  the  war  with  Aretas  (36 
a.d.)  to  the  judgment  of  Gcd  for  what  Herod  had  done  to  the  prophet. 
Aretas  was  the  father  of  Herod's  repudiated  wife. 


i  9:  11-13.  2  15:  35,  36.     Cf.  Justin  M.,  Dial.,  xlix.  a  8:  27—9:  1,  11-13. 

«  1:  14.  e  Mt.  11:  7-ll=Lk.  7:  24-28. 


6:14-17 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


73 


14  A  ND  king  Herod  heard  (thereof);  for  his 
xjl    name  had   become   known:    and  xhe 

said,  John  2the  Baptist  is  risen  from 
the  dead,  and  therefore  do   these  powers 

15  work  in  him.  But  others  said,  It  is  Elijah. 
And  others  said,  (It  is)  a  prophet,  (even)  as 

16  one  of  the  prophets.  But  Herod, 
when  he  heard  (thereof),  said,  John,  whom 

17  I  beheaded,  he  is  risen.  For  Herod  him- 
self had  sent  forth  and  laid  hold  upon 
John,  and  bound  him  3in  prison  for  the 
sake  of  Herodias,  his  brother  Philip's  wife: 


1  Var.  they.  2  Gr.  the  Baptizer. 

3  |3  var.  insert  and  put  him. 


Vers.l4-16=Mt. 
14:  1,  2  =  Lk. 
9:  7—9 

Cf.  Lk.  13:  31- 
33 

R(P) 


Vers.l7-29=Mt. 
14:3-12a=L,k. 
3:19,  20 

R 


Vers.  14-16.  Herod  on  the  Alert.  R,  in  ver.  16,  understands  yer. 
146  as  an  utterance  of  Herod,  and  therefore  doubtless  had  the  reading 
elegen,  "he  said,"  not  elegon,  "they  (i.e.,  people)  were  saying."  Never- 
theless, the  latter,  which  survives  in  many  mss.  (see  var.),  gives  the 
intended  sense,  as  Luke  seems  to  be  aware  (cf.  Lk.  9:  7-9).  His- 
torically it  is  the  only  one  compatible  with  the  character  of  "that 
fox."  Originally  some  menacing  word  or  act  of  Herod  must  have 
been  related,  probably  to  explain  Jesus'  action  (cf.  Lk.  13:31-33); 
otherwise  the  reader  has  no  interest  in  Herod's  "hearing."  The  sup- 
pression of  this  sequel  in  favor  of  the  highly  apocryphal  story  of  the 
prophet  "in  king's  houses"  (see  below  on  vers.  17-29),  and  the  mis- 
reading of  ver.  146,  are  among  the  clearest  evidences  that  R  is  supple- 
menting an  older  document.  This  older  narrative  connected  with  the 
faith-wonders  (ver.  14,  "these  powers")  of  4:  35 — 5:  43.  The  con- 
nection is  so  obscured  by  the  insertion  of  6:  1-6  (R)  and  7-13  (Q) 
that  commentators  sometimes  attempt  to  form  another,  relating  the 
spreading  fame  of  Jesus  to  the  Mission  of  the  Twelve. 

Ver.  14.  King  Herod.  Antipas,  properly  called  "the  tetrarch"  by 
Matthew  and  Luke  (but  Matthew  relapses  in  14:  9).  Ambition  to 
secure  the  royal  title,  which  had  belonged  to  his  father,  became  the 
occasion  of  Antipas'  ruin.  Therefore  do  these  powers  (literally, 
miracles)  work  in  him.  The  current  rumor  (read  "they  were  saying") 
is  based  on  the  apocalyptic  belief  in  the  Coming  of  Elias  (see  above  on 
1:  2-13,  pp.  6  and  71),  still  evinced  in  the  Jewish  practice  of  setting 
a  chair  "for  Elias"  at  the  Passover. 

Ver.  15.  A  prophet  as  one  of  the  prophets.  A  man  of  God  like  those 
of  the  Old  Testament,  without  special  reference  to  Elias  and  the  Great 
Repentance. 

Vers.  17-29.  A  digression  rightly  described  by  H.  J.  Holtzmann  as 
"the  very  pattern  of  legend."  R  is  so  led  off  by  it  as  never  to  return 
to  what  Herod  did  or  said,  and  how  it  affected  Jesus.  We  can  only 
infer  from  Lk.  13:  31-33  that  it  had  something  to  do  with  Jesus'  sub- 
sequent movements.  Matthew  is  still  more  confused,  beginning  the 
episode  of  the  Baptist's  Death  in  the  pluperfect  (Mt.  14:  3),  but  at  the 
close  (14,  12,  13)  proceeding  as  if  the  story  stood  in  proper  chrono- 
logical sequence.  The  whole  narrative  is  based  on  the  identification 
of  the  Baptist  with  Elijah,  and  the  Old  Testament  story  of  Jezebel 
plotting  against  the  life  of  the  prophet,  while  the  latter  rebukes  the 


74 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        6:  18-22 


18  for  he  had  married  her.  For  John  said 
unto  Herod,  It  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to 

19  have  thy  brother's  wife.  And  Herodias  set 
herself   against   him,   and   desired   to  kill 

20  him;  and  she  could  not;  for  Herod  feared 
John,  knowing  that  he  was  a  righteous 
man  and  a  holy,  and  kept  him  safe.  And 
when  he  heard  him,  he  *was  much   per- 

21  plexed;  and  he  heard  him  gladly.  And 
when  a  convenient  day  was  come,  that 
Herod  on  his  birthday  made  a  supper  to 
his  lords,  and  the  2high  captains,  and  the 

22  chief  men  of  Galilee;  and  when  3the  daugh- 
ter of  Herodias  herself  came  in  and  danced 
4she  pleased  Herod  and  them  that  sat  at 
meat  with  him ;  and  the  king  said  unto  the 
damsel,  Ask  of  me  whatsoever  thou  wilt, 

1  Var.  did  many  things. 

2  Or,  military  tribunes.     Gr.  chiliarchs. 

3  The  earlier  authorities  read  his  daughter  Herodias. 
*  Or,  it. 


I  Kings  19:  2 


Ac.  24:  24,  25 


"king"  to  his  face.  The  scene  of  the  banquet  is  laid  in  Antipas'  palace 
in  Tiberias  (see  ver.  21,  "chief  men  of  Galilee"),  where  the  prophet  is 
supposed  first  to  preach  to  the  "king"  (ver.  18),  and  afterward  to  lie 
imprisoned  (vers.  27,  28).  In  reality  we  know  from  Q  (Mt.  11:8  = 
Lk.  7:  25)  that  John's  ministry  was  far  from  "those  who  are  in  kings' 
houses,"  on  the  remote  confines  of  Antipas'  tetrarchy.  From  Josephus1 
we  learn  that  John  was  imprisoned,  as  we  should  expect,  not  in  Ti- 
berias, but  near  "the  wilderness"  in  the  border  fortress  of  Machaerus 
overhanging  the  Dead  Sea.  Also  that  his  imprisonment  and  execution 
were  simply  a  measure  of  precaution  against  messianistic  outbreaks. 
What  is  still  more  significant  of  the  origin  of  the  Mark  legend,  it  ap- 
pears from  the  same  source  that  the  populace,  after  suffering  the 
calamities  of  the  war  of  36  a.d.,  in  which  Aretas,  king  of  Edom,  took 
revenge  for  the  insult  to  his  daughter,  whom  Antipas  had  repudiated 
in  order  to  marry  Herodias,  "thought  that  the  destruction  of  Herod's 
army  came  from  God,  and  that  very  justly,  as  a  punishment  for  what 
he  did  against  John,  who  was  called  the  Baptist."  Further  evidence 
of  the  highly  legendary  character  of  the  folk-tale  here  embodied  by 
R  appears  in  the  flagrant  historical  errors.  Thus  "Philip"  (ver.  17) 
was  not  the  husband  of  Herodias,  but  the  second  husband  of  Salome, 
here  spoken  of  as  a  "little  maid"  (R.  V.,  "damsel,"  the  Greek  is 
korasion,  the  same  word  as  in  5:  42,  a  diminutive  of  kore,  "maiden"), 
and  according  to  the  best  manuscripts  as  the  daughter  of  Antipas. 
Her  real  father,  Herodias'  first  husband,  was  named  Herod  like  his 
father.  As  Philip  died  in  34  a.d.,  and  Salome  was  at  this  time  at  least 
twenty-eight  years  of  age,  neither  the  term  nor  the  representation  is 
appropriate;  for  at  any  age  the  kind  of  public  dancing  at  a  banquet 
here  meant,  by  a  member  of  his  family,  would  be  the  last  thing  to 


i  Ant.  VIII,  v.  2. 


6 1 25-29 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


75 


23  and  I  will  give  it  thee.  And  he  sware  unto 
her,  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  ask  of  me,  I  will 
give  it  thee,  unto  the  half  of  my  kingdom. 

24  And  she  went  out,  and  said  unto  her 
mother,  What  shall  I  ask?    And  she  said, 

25  The  head  of  John  Jthe  Baptist.  And  she 
came  in  straightway  with  haste  unto  the 
king,  and  asked,  saying,  I  will  that  thou 
forthwith  give  me  in  a  charger  the  head 

26  of  John  Hhe  Baptist.  And  the  king  was 
exceeding  sorry;  but  for  the  sake  of  his 
oaths,  and  of  them  that  sat  at  meat,  he 

27  would  not  reject  her.  And  straightway 
the  king  sent  forth  a  soldier  of  his  guard, 
and  commanded  to  bring  his  head:  and  he 

28  went  and  beheaded  him  in  the  prison,  and 
brought  his  head  in  a  charger,  and  gave  it 
to  the  damsel;  and  the  damsel  gave  it  to 

29  her  mother.  And  when  his  disciples  heard 
(thereof),  they  came  and  took  up  his  corpse, 
and  laid  it  in  a  tomb. 


1  Gr.  the  Baptizer. 


Esth.  5:  3-6 


•  'please  the  king."  Needless  to  add  that  the  "king's"  promise  (based 
on  Esth.  5:  3-6)  could  not  be  made  in  the  face  of  Roman  control.  In 
short,  the  whole  conception  of  the  court  is  based  far  more  on  the  story 
of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  Esther  and  Ahasuerus,  than  on  Tiberias  and  its 
Roman  underling.  We  have  already  noted  (see  on  1:  14)  that  the 
underlying  narrative  assumes  the  story  of  John's  imprisonment  to  be 
known.  We  have  the  more  reason  here  for  attributing  wholly  to  R 
the  story  which  Luke  prudently  dismisses  with  a  bare  mention  in 
3: 19,  20. 

Ver.  25.  Give  me  in  a  charger  the  head  of  John  the  Baptist.  The 
monstrous  nature  of  the  revenge  and  the  immoral  means  used  to  attain 
it  reflect  not  so  much  the  real  conditions  of  Antipas'  court  (bad  as 
they  doubtless  were)  as  the  popular  hatred  of  the  woman  whose  adul- 
terous passion  had  drenched  the  land  with  blood,  and  a  bitterness  like 
that  which  could  lead  even  one  who  was  ready  to  be  anathema  from 
Christ  for  the  sake  of  Israel  his  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  to 
write  the  indictment  of  I  Thess.  2:  15,  16. 

Ver.  27.  A  soldier  of  his  guard.  The  Greek  is  a  transliteration  of 
the  Latin  speculator,  -'guard." 


76  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


THE  SIGN  OF  THE  LOAVES  IN  GALILEE 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  b.  6: 30 — 7:  30.  Jesus,  when  the  Apostles 
had  reported  to  him  from  their  mission,  instituted  the  sign  of 
the  Breaking  of  Bread,  for  them  and  for  those  that  followed,  and 
when  the  scribes  opposed  him  for  disregard  of  Jewish  ablutions 
he  rejected  their  ceremonial  distinctions  and  departed  into 
Phoenicia,  healing  there  the  daughter  of  a  Gentile  and  promising 
to  the  Gentiles  that  they  should  in  good  time  be  partakers  of  the 
children's  bread. 

Vers.  31-44.  After  their  return  Jesus  called  the  Twelve 
into  the  open  country  because  he  desired  that  they  should  rest. 
But  when  they  departed  in  the  boat  together  the  crowds  on  the 
shore  followed  from  all  the  towns,  and  came  beforehand  to  the 
place.  So  Jesus,  who  had  compassion  on  their  need  of  leader- 
ship and  instruction,  taught  them  until  evening.  So  it  came 
to  pass  that  a  great  company  were  still  about  him  at  the  time 
of  the  evening  meal.  And  the  disciples  would  have  dismissed 
them  to  the  villages  near  by.  But  Jesus  commanded  that  they 
be  made  his  guests,  and  that  the  store  of  their  own  provision 
be  set  before  them.  They  had  but  five  loaves  and  two  fishes. 
And  in  so  ordaining  Jesus  required  also  that  they  maintain 
the  order  of  the  banquet  that  is  still  observed.  For  first  he  di- 
vided them  into  eating  companies  of  even  number,  arranged 
upon  the  green  grass.  Then  he  took  the  loaves  and  standing 
in  the  midst  looked  up  to  heaven  and  blessed  them.  And  after 
the  blessing  he  brake  the  loaves  and  gave  to  the  disciples  to  dis- 
tribute among  the  multitude,  as  those  do  who  serve  the  tables. 
Then,  when  all  were  satisfied,  he  bade  the  disciples  each  to  fill 
his  basket  from  the  remnants,  that  nothing  be  lost.  And  it  was 
found  afterward  that  the  baskets  were  filled  from  the  remnants, 
though  the  multitude  that  shared  with  them  were  five  thousand 
men.  So  greatly  did  God  do  for  Jesus  beyond  the  miracle 
which  he  wrought  for  Elisha,  when  the  one  hundred  were  fed 
from  the  twenty  barley  loaves. 

Vers.  45-52.  But  the  disciples  perceived  not,  even  after 
Jesus  had  given  them  this  sign  of  his  resurrection,  how  God 
was  working  through  him.  For  when  Jesus  had  dismissed 
the  assembly  with  the  word  of  benediction,  and  had  sent  them 
on  by  boat,  while  he  himself  remained  in  prayer  upon  the 
mountain,  they  once  more  could  not  believe  in  his  power  and 
presence  with  them.     They  in  fact  were  laboring  all  the  night 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD         77 

against  a  tempestuous  sea,  until  at  last  just  before  the  dawn, 
he,  who  fully  knew  all  their  distress,  came  to  them  again,  tread- 
ing under  foot  all  the  waves  of  the  sea.  And  had  they  not 
cried  out  he  would  not  even  have  entered  the  boat,  but  would 
have  continued  walking  on  the  sea.  Then,  because  they  under- 
stood not  the  sign  of  the  resurrection,  they  cried  out  with  fear, 
supposing  it  to  be  an  apparition.  But  Jesus  reassured  them, 
showing  them  how  it  was  no  other  than  himself,  and  entered  in 
with  them  into  the  boat.  Then  all  at  once  the  tempest  ceased. 
But  they  perceived  not  the  meaning  of  this,  nor  of  the  sign  of 
the  loaves,  because  of  the  hardening  which  God  had  sent  upon 
Israel. 

Vers.  53-56.  They  came  then  once  more  to  Gennesaret 
where  Jesus'  miracles  were  done.  And  again  they  thronged 
him  as  before,  bringing  the  sick  from  place  to  place;  and  setting 
them  on  pallets  in  the  streets  and  market-places  they  begged 
only  to  touch  him.  And  as  many  as  touched  him  were  restored 
to  health. 

7:  1-23.  But  the  Pharisees  with  a  company  of  scribes  who 
had  been  sent  down  from  Jerusalem  found  fault  with  his  dis- 
ciples for  neglect  of  the  ablutions.  For  the  whole  people  of 
the  Jews  are  occupied  with  constant  lustrations,  and  will  not 
eat  without  ceremonial  ablutions  of  all  sorts.  So  Jesus  rebuked 
their  hypocrisy,  showing  how  Isaiah  had  declared  the  vanity 
of  their  religion  and  called  their  doctrines  "  precepts  of  men." 
As  for  the  scribes,  he  showed  that  they  had  made  the  real  law 
of  God  of  no  value  by  the  tradition  which  they  build  about  it, 
perverting  its  real  meaning  into  a  requirement  serviceable  to 
their  own  avarice.  And  he  did  not  stop  at  this  but  swept 
away  the  whole  foundation  of  their  distinctions  of  meats  and 
defilements  by  external  pollution,  by  a  saying  which  he 
summoned  all  the  people  to  hear  and  understand.  Nothing 
from  outside,  he  declared,  can  produce  defilement  in  God's 
sight.  Purity  and  impurity  have  to  do  only  with  the  inward 
man.  But  because  of  the  veil  that  was  upon  the  hearts  of  all 
that  people  the  disciples  themselves  did  not  yet  understand  this 
saying,  till  Jesus  in  private  had  again  explained  the  truth, 
abolishing  the  distinctions  of  the  Jewish  law  and  declaring 
that  impurity  comes  only  from  an  evil  heart  within. 

Vers.  24-30.  And  when  he  had  thus  shown  the  blindness 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  baselessness  of  their  distinctions  of  clean 
and  unclean,  he  left  them  and  sought  hiding  in  the  borders  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon.  But  even  here  his  fame  had  preceded  him, 
so  that  a  Gentile  woman  of  that  land  besought  him  to  exorcise 
the  devil  that  had  possession  of  her  daughter.     And  Jesus, 


78  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

knowing  that  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  to  the  Jews,  and 
only  after  his  death  proclaimed  to  all  the  Gentiles,  rebuffed  her 
with  the  saying  of  the  Jews,  Let  the  children  first  have  their 
food:  the  dogs  should  not  be  fed  with  the  children's  bread.  But 
she  took  hold  of  the  saying  and  answered,  Even  the  dogs  are 
filled  afterward  from  the  children's  bread.  So  when  Jesus 
perceived  her  faith  he  commended  her  saying  and  gave  her 
what  she  asked,  saying  that  she  would  find  the  devil  gone  out 
from  her  daughter.     And  so  it  was. 


SUBDIVISION  B.    6$ 30—7: 30.— CRITICISM 

In  all  the  Gospels  the  story  of  the  Sign  of  the  Loaves  is  central.  In 
all  it  stands  in  close  connection  with  the  Revelation  of  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Cross.  In  the  two  earlier  it  is  related  twice,  once  on  Jewish, 
once  on  Gentile,  territory.  In  the  Third  Gospel  the  story  is  brought  into 
closer  connection  with  that  of  the  Revelation  to  Peter  by  omitting  all 
that  follows  the  first  Sign,  and  cancelling  all  that  concerns  the  second, 
together  with  all  the  journeys  into  Gentile  territory.  Compensation  is 
made  by  an  entire  second  treatise  in  which  the  practical  questions  of 
the  omitted  portions  are  settled  on  similar  grounds.  In  the  earliest 
Gospel,  and  the  latest,  the  two  which  we  designate  Pauline  because 
their  primary  object  is  faith  in  the  person  of  Christ,  special  attention 
is  called  by  the  evangelist  to  the  spiritual  significance  of  the  "sign."1 
In  the  latest  of  all  an  elaborate  discourse  makes  this  occasion  in  Galilee 
that  of  the  real  institution  of  the  Eucharist,  all  reference  to  this  sac- 
rament being  cancelled  from  the  story  of  "  the  night  in  which  Jesus 
was  betrayed." 

There  is  no  possible  explanation  of  the  remarkable  phenomena 
attendant  upon  this  particular  element  of  gospel  tradition  unless 
regard  be  had  for  the  application  to  actual  conditions  and  problems 
of  church  life  which  controlled  in  its  transmission.  Again  we  must 
recall  the  fact  that  biblical  narrative  is  not  given  for  historical,  but 
for  setiological,  purposes.  The  explanation  of  all  the  phenomena 
enumerated  becomes  apparent  when  we  apply  the  key  of  current 
symbolism;  not  our  own  allegorizing,  but  that  for  whose  application 
in  contemporary  church  use  we  have  documentary  attestation.  The 
original  purpose  of  the  story  now  in  question  was  to  justify  and 
explain  the  primitive  rite  of  the  "Breaking  of  Bread,"  or  common 
meal,  an  institution  of  Jesus2  dating  from  a  period  so  early  as  to  be 
distinctive  of  him  even  for  disciples  who  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
occurrences  of  the  night  of  betrayal.3  This  common  meal,  or  banquet, 
was  a  feature  of  prime  importance  sociologically  in  the  primitive 
Church,  a  very  material  help  to  the  poor,  even  the  absent  ones  being 
daily  supplied  in  their  homes  with  the  remnants,4  and  when  free  from 


1  Mk.  6:  52;  8:  16-21;  Jn.  6:  26-59. 

2  It_  does  not  differ  in  form  from  the  Jewish  rite  of  the  Kiddush,  or  Blessing, 
breaking,  and  distribution  of  bread  and  a  cup  of  wine  by  the  father  of  the  household 
on  the  eve  of  the  sabbath  and  of  the  principal  feasts.  See  s.v.  Kiddush  in  Ham- 
burger's R.E. 

a  Lk.  24:  30-35.  *  Acts  6:  1-6. 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD         79 

the  spirit  of  clique,  a  bond  of  brotherly  union.1  It  was  similar  to 
the  common  meals  of  the  chaberim  or  "neighborhoods"  of  the  Phari- 
sees, and  the  banquets  of  the  fraternities  (mostly  religious)  of  the 
Graeco-Roman  world,  and  was  designated  the  Agap6,  or  banquet  of 
"ministering  love,"  in  token  of  the  spirit  inculcated. 

Another  rite,  so  closely  akin  to  this  that  even  in  Paul's  day  the  two 
are  already  blended,3  is  the  Eucharist,  or  sacrament  of  "the  Lord's 
Body."  Jesus  himself,  as  Paul  states,  is  responsible  for  this  close 
blending;  for  at  his  leave-taking  from  the  Twelve,  in  apprehension  of 
the  blow  which  would  surely  "scatter" — perhaps  forever — even  the 
remnants  of  his  "little  flock,"  Jesus  gave  new  significance  to  the  simple 
practice  which  had  been  their  bond  of  brotherhood  hitherto.  He  asked 
that  in  continuing  their  breaking  of  bread  together  they  would  do  it 
"in  memory  of  him,"  regarding  the  bread  itself  as  a  token  of  his  body 
now  given  to  death  for  their  sakes.  To  the  primitive  Church  accord- 
ingly the  Eucharist  is  primarily  a  "communion  of  the  body  of  Christ." 
Its  earliest  liturgy  emphasizes  but  this  single  feature,  the  "gathering 
together  into  one"  of  the  Church  as  scattered  wheat.4  The  mystical 
or  sacramentarian  element  of  participation  in  the  death  and  life  of  the 
crucified  and  risen  Lord  is  a  Pauline  infusion.  It  was  inevitable 
that  the  close  connection  of  the  two  rites  should  communicate  to  the 
former  much  of  the  symbolic  sense  attached  almost  from  the  outset  to 
the  latter. 

In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  the  two  rites  are  still  separate,  though 
through  the  anti-Jewish  influence  of  Mark  the  Eucharist  has  come 
to  be  regarded  not  as  an  adaptation  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread,  as  its 
very  elements  indicate  it  to  have  been,  but  as  a  substitute  for  the 
Passover.  The  symbolism  of  the  "mystery  of  the  Lord's  body"  has 
also  manifestly  begun  to  affect  the  traditions  of  the  Sign  of  the  Loaves.5 
John,  the  gospel  of  Asia,  on  the  contrary,  still  preserves  the  primitive 
"Quartodeciman"  idea  of  the  death  of  Jesus  (not  the  institution  of  the 
supper)  as  the  fulfillment  of  the  Passover,  as  in  Paul.8  But  the  transfer 
of  symbolism  is  carried  to  the  utmost  extreme.  The  Breaking  of 
Bread  in  Galilee  has  absorbed  the  whole  significance  of  the  Eucharist, 
leaving  nothing  for  the  night  of  the  betrayal  (not  passover  night  ac- 
cording to  John,  but  the  thirteenth  Nisan)  but  a  rite  of  footwashing! 

A  tendency  toward  Johannine  symbolism  is  quite  apparent  in  the 
grouping  of  Subdivisions  b  and  c  and  in  the  editorial  reflections.7  But 
we  may  see  from  the  Collision  with  the  Scribes  and  Departure  of  Jesus 
which  each  time  is  made  the  sequel,  that  R  has  mainly  in  mind  as  the 
true  Sign  of  the  Loaves  a  thought  similar  to  that  with  which  Jn.  12: 
20-43  winds  up  the  story  of  the  public  ministry.  The  falling  into  the 
ground  of  the  kernel  of  wheat  is  the  condition  of  the  ultimate  harvest, 
the  lifting  up  of  the  Son  of  man  causes  him  to  draw  all  men  unto  him. 
Jesus  therefore,  in  Mk.  7:  1-23,  repudiates  the  Jewish  distinctions 
of  meats,  the  barrier  really  found  most  effective  to  resist  the  spread 
of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentile  world,  and  departs  to  give  a  foretaste  of 
the  children's  bread  to  "dogs"  in  Phoenicia.  In  8:  11-21  he  refuses 
a  sign  to  the  Pharisees,  while  as  he  departs  to  give  light  to  the  blind 
in  Gentile  Bethsaida  he  quickens  the  understanding  of  the  Twelve  to 
perceive  the  Sign  from  heaven  already  given  to  them. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  theme  R  draws  upon  the  two  great  Q  com- 
plexes of  the  Denunciation  of  the  Scribes  and  the  Demand  of  a  Sign,8 


1 1  Cor.  11:  17-22,  3.3,  34.  2  Jude  12.  '  I  Cor.  11:  23-29. 

*Didache,x.  s  See  notes.  «  I  Cor.  5:  7;  15:  20.  7  6:  52;  8:  12,  16-21. 

8Mt.  12:  22-45=Lk.  11:  14-36  and  Mt.  23:  l-39=Lk.  11:  37—12:  1. 


80  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

of  which  the  former  had  already  been  drawn  upon  in  3 :  22-30.  Jewish 
unbelief,  as  in  R's  own  time,  now  becomes  the  occasion  for  Jesus' 
withdrawal,  instead  of  the  menacing  attitude  of  Herod;  though  a 
trace  of  the  latter  motive  remains  in  8:  15.  In  Q  the  former  discourse 
had  been  prefaced  by  reference  to  Jesus'  "casting  out  a  dumb  devil" 
and  perhaps  his  opening  of  blind  eyes  besides.1  These  two  (?)  healings 
are  now  removed  from  their  place  in  6:  56,  R  supplying  the  gap  by 
that  verse,  an  editorial  generalization  of  his  own.  They  are  now  de- 
veloped by  symbolical  elaboration  into  two  parallel  healings  enclosing 
as  in  a  symmetrical  frame2  the  second  Sign  of  the  Loaves.  Thus 
placed  they  carry  out  the  thought  of  the  paragraph  in  the  sense  of 
Is.  29:  10-24;  35:  5.  Paul  had  declared  of  Israel,  employing  this  same 
prophecy,  "God  gave  them  a  spirit  of  stupor,  eyes  that  they  should 
not  see  and  ears  that  they  should  not  hear."  In  the  same  context3 
he  had  added  from  Ps.  69:  23,  24  that  God  had  "made  their  table 
a  stumbling-block,"  that  "their  loss  might  be  the  riches  of  the  Gen- 
tiles." R,  who  pragmatizes  both  "prophecies"  in  7: 1-23  and  8: 17,  18 
to  show  the  nature  of  Jewish  impenetrability,  sets  forth  his  conception 
of  the  cure  prophesied  in  Is.  35:  5,  6  in  this  pair  of  healings.4  We  shall 
see  that  he  encloses  Subdivisions  b  and  c  of  Division  IV  between  a 
similar  pair,  the  "Dumb  Devil"  of  9:  14-29  and  Opening  of  Blind 
Eyes  of  10: 46-52,  and  introduces  from  QLK,  near  the  beginning 
of  Division  V,  another  miracle  which  by  universal  admission  can 
only  be  regarded  as  symbolic.5  Symbolism  in  7:  31-37  and  8:  22-26 
is  therefore  no  unique  phenomenon. 

The  same  pragmatic  purpose  is  pursued  in  the  geographical  outline 
of  this  Division.  An  earlier  reference  (P?)  to  Jesus'  withdrawal  into 
"the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,"  i.e.,  northern  Galilee,  including  the 
region  of  the  headwaters  of  the  Jordan  and  "the  villages  of  Cssarea 
Philippi,"  is  editorially  developed  into  a  vast  missionary  tour  travers- 
ing the  entire  territory,  now  heathen,  once  included  in  the  (ideal) 
borders  of  the  Holy  Land.  Phoenicia,  Decapolis,  and  the  territory  of 
Philip  are  thus  successively  covered.8  No  wonder  Matthew  simplifies 
and  Luke  transfers  the  whole  conception  to  his  second  treatise , 


i  Mt.  12:  22=Lk.  11:  14,  34-36;  cf.  Mt.  9:  27-34. 

2  7:  31-37  and  8:  22-26.  3  Rom.  11:  7-12. 

4  7:  31-37  and  8:  22-26.  5  The  Cursing  of  the  Fig  Tree  11:  12-14,  20-25. 

"7:24,31;  8:  10,  13,22,27. 


6:  30-35 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


81 


30  A  ND  the  apostles  gather  themselves  to- 
JLl.    gether  unto  Jesus;  and  they  told  him 

all  things,  whatsoever  they  had  done, 

31  and  whatsoever  they  had  taught.  And  he 
saith  unto  them,  Come  ye  yourselves  apart 
into  a  desert  place,  and  rest  a  while.  For 
there  were  many  coming  and  going,  and 
they  had  no  leisure   so  much   as   to  eat. 

32  And  they  went  away  in  the 

33  boat  to  a  desert  place  apart.  And  (the 
people)  saw  them  going,  and  many  knew 
(them),  and  they  ran  there  together  *on 
foot  from  all  the  cities,  and  outwent  them. 

34  And  he  came  forth  and  saw  a  great  mul- 
titude, and  he  had  compassion  on  them, 
because  they  were  as  sheep  not  hav- 
ing  a  shepherd:    and  he  began  to  teach 

35  them  many  things.  And  when  the  day 
was  now  far  spent,  his  disciples  came  unto 
him,  and  said,  The  place  is  desert,  and  the 

1  Or,  by  land. 


Vers.30,31=Mt. 
14:  13=Lk.  9: 
10 

R  (Q) 

(Mt.    11:  25-30= 

Lk.  10:  17-22) 


Vers.33-44=Mt. 
14:13-21=Lk. 
9 : 106-17 

(Q?) 
Cf.  8:  1-10 


(Mt.  9:  36;  cf. 
Num.27:  17) 


6:  30,  31.  Return  of  the  Disciples.  This  paragraph,  employed  by- 
Mark  to  introduce  the  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand,  reverts  to  his 
account  of  the  Mission  of  the  Twelve  (6:  7-11),  taken  from  Q,  and 
wholly  unconnected  with  the  Wonders  of  Faith  and  Herod's  Com- 
ment, (P)  4:  35—5:  43;  6:  14.  Q  affords  a  parallel  (Mt.  11:  25-30  = 
Lk.  10:  17-22),  though  the  Thanksgiving  in  Matthew  is  not  con- 
nected with  the  return  of  the  disciples  (in  Matthew  the  sending  is 
permanent),  and  in  Luke  the  Invitation  to  Rest  (Mt.  11:  28-30)  does 
not  appear.  In  Mark  (ver.  31)  this  spiritual  utterance  of  the  Wisdom 
of  God  (cf.  Ecclus.  51:  1-10,  23,  26,  27  and  Lk.  11:  49)  is  pragmatized 
after  the  fashion  of  R.  We  have  no  evidence  that  the  P  source  related 
either  the  Mission  or  Return.  The  misunderstanding,  however,  in 
Mt.  14:  12  of  the  Return  as  a  report  of  John's  disciples  to  Jesus,  makes 
the  suggestion  a  tempting  one  that  Matthew  had  besides  our  Mark, 
a  more  primitive  form  (P?),  which  after  6:  14  read  simply,  "For  Herod 
had  slain  John  in  prison.  And  his  (i.e.,  Jesus')  disciples  came  and 
told  Jesus,"  etc. 

Vers.  32-44.  The  (First)  Miracle  of  the  Loaves.  In  both  versions  of 
this  miracle  the  details  emphasized  show  the  aetiological  interest  of 
the  primitive  narrator.  It  was  the  evening  hour.  The  multitude 
assembled  to  hear  the  word  were  made  the  guests  of  Jesus  and  his 
disciples.  They  were  set  in  orderly  arrangement  of  table  companies. 
Jesus,  acting  as  head  of  a  great  household,  "looked  up  to  heaven  and 
blessed"  the  loaves.  Then  the  breaking.  Then  distribution  by  the 
disciples.  Then  gathering  of  the  remnants  in  baskets  corresponding 
in  number  to  those  performing  the  service  of  distribution.  Each 
detail  describes  the  ritual  or  defines  the  duty  of  some  participant  in 
the  Church  institution  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread;  for,  as  we  learn  from 
Justin  Martyr  (ca.  150  a.d.),  it  was  the  duty  of  the  deacons  after  the 


82  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        6:36-42 


36  day  is  now  far  spent:  send  them  away,  that 
they  may  go  into  the  country  and  villages 
round  about,  and  buy  themselves  somewhat 

37  to  eat.  But  he  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  Give  ye  them  to  eat.  And  they  say 
unto  him,  Shall  we  go  and  buy  two  hun- 
dred pennyworth  of  bread,  and  give  them 

38  to  eat?  And  he  saith  unto  them,  How 
many  loaves  have  ye?  go  (and)  see.  And 
when  they  knew,  they  say,  Five,  and  two 

39  fishes.  And  he  commanded  them  that  all 
should  2sit  down  by  companies  upon  the 

40  green  grass.     And  they  sat  down  in  ranks, 

41  by  hundreds,  and  by  fifties.  And  he  took 
the  five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes,  and  look- 
ing up  to  heaven,  he  blessed,  and  brake 
the  loaves;  and  he  gave  to  the  disciples 
to  set  before  them;   and  the  two  fishes 

42  divided  he  among  them  all.     And  they  did 

1  The  Greek  denotes  a  coin  worth  about  a  franc. 

2  Gr.  recline. 


Supper  to  distribute  a  portion  to  those  absent,1  as  in  earlier  times  it 
seems  to  have  been  their  duty  to  distribute  fragments  to  the  poor 
(Acts  6:1). 

Ver.  36.  The  disciples'  proposal  shows  that  bread  was  obtainable 
by  ordinary  means.  But  R  has  no  idea  of  limiting  Jesus'  appeal  for 
miraculous  intervention  to  cases  where  only  miracle  could  avail. 

Ver.  38.  How  many  loaves  have  ye?  The  number  "seven"  (8:5; 
here  divided  into  "five"  loaves  and  "two"  fishes)  is,  of  course,  adapted. 
In  8:  1-10  it  corresponds  to  the  number  of  "baskets"  of  fragments, 
possibly  because  in  the  primitive  Church  the  officers  who  "served 
tables"  were  seven  in  number  (Acts  6:3).  The  model  for  the  story  of 
miracle  is  II  Kings  4:  42-44.  In  Jn.  6:  13  this  pattern  is  imitated 
even  to  the  point  of  describing  the  loaves  as  of  "barley";  but  the 
point  of  original  application  seems  to  have  been  somewhat  different 
(see  on  vers.  42-44). 

Ver.  39.  By  companies  (Gr.,  "eating-companies").  Orderly  ar- 
rangement was  an  important  condition  of  decorum  in  the  Love-feast; 
cf.  the  rebuke  of  disorder  at  Corinth  (I  Cor.  11:  17-22). 

Ver.  40.  In  ranks  (Gr.,  "garden-beds").  The  mention  of  the  "green" 
grass  completes  the  picture.  Those  who  like  to  find  in  the  graphic 
traits  of  Mark  evidences  of  Petrine  tradition  are  at  liberty  to  do  so; 
but  the  comparison  is  quite  within  the  capacity  of  any  early  evan- 
gelist who  had  witnessed  Christian  love-feasts  in  the  open  air. 

Vers.  42-44.  R  does  not  state  in  so  many  words  that  Jesus  wrought 
the  miracle  of  Elisha  (II  Kings  4:  42-44)  on  a  larger  scale,  but  makes 
it  apparent  simply  through  the  numbers  employed.  These,  however, 
are  manifestly  artificial.  It  is  not  clear  that  the  fundamental  purpose 
of  the  story  in  its  primitive  form  was  to  relate  a  marvel  of  miraculous 

1  First  Apology,  lxv. 


6:43,44  THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD  83 


43  all  eat,  and  were  filled.     And  they  took  up 
broken  pieces,  twelve  basketfuls,  and  also 

44  of  the  fishes.     And  they  that  ate  the  loaves 
were  five  thousand  men. 


II  Kings  4:  42-44 


power.  On  the  contrary,  the  position  and  context  of  the  story,  and 
the  name  ("Love-feast")  and  practical  object  of  the  institution  whose 
origin  it  set  forth,  suggest  as  the  primary  motive  the  inculcation  of 
the  spirit  so  strikingly  evinced  in  the  primitive  Church  in  the  charism 
of  giving  (Acts  2:  44-46;  4:  34,  35;  6:  1-3;  I  Cor.  13:  3).  Jesus  was 
described  as  setting  the  example  of  the  practice  thus  attested.  He 
had  commanded  with  characteristic  generosity  the  unreserved  sharing 
of  the  disciples'  whole  store  with  the  motley  throng  of  hearers.  With 
a  faith  in  the  response  of  human  nature  to  such  treatment  as  yet 
unattainable  to  his  disciples,  he  made  the  whole  company  his  guests. 
The  results  were  indeed  memorable,  though  the  narrative  itself,  if 
reduced  to  its  primitive  outline,  does  not  seem  to  suggest  that  they 
were  such  as  we  should  consider  miraculous.  In  a  country  where  even 
today  no  man  goes  half  a  day's  journey  from  home  without  the  in- 
dispensable store  of  "bread  for  the  journey"  in  his  "wallet"  (6:  8; 
8:  14)  there  would  be  less  lack  of  actual  food  than  of  genuine  disposi- 
tion to  share  it.1  The  Agap£  seems  to  have  been  referred  in  the 
primitive  Church  to  an  occasion  when  Jesus  proved  what  his  own 
unstinted  goodness  could  do  in  the  way  of  smiting  the  rock  of  human 
selfishness  to  supply  the  people's  need  in  the  wilderness.  R,  who  has 
little  appreciation  for  such  reserve  in  the  appeal  for  miraculous  inter- 
vention as  we  find  in  Q  (cf.  Mt.  4:  3,  4  =  Lk.  4:  3,  4),  and  a  very  decided 
disposition  to  prove  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  by  marvels  of  supernatural 
power,  is  doubtless  largely,  though  perhaps  not  wholly,  responsible 
for  the  change  of  emphasis. 

Ver.  43.  Twelve  basketfuls,  i.e.,  each  apostle  fills  a  hamper.  In 
8:  8  we  have  seven  "baskets."  The  "hamper"  [kophinos)  was  the 
receptacle  in  which  the  orthodox  Jew  carried  his  kosher  food. 

Vers.  45-52.  Walking  on  the  Sea.  The  return  by  boat  made  without 
incident  in  8:  10  is  developed  in  this  source  (Q?)  into  an  allegorical 
parallel  to  4:  35-41.  R  connects  its  symbolism  with  "the  loaves"  in 
ver.  52.  Luke  cancels,  perhaps  with  regard  for  the  handle  a  narrative 
of  the  kind  would  afford  to  the  docetist.  Matthew  takes  the  opposite 
course  of  elaborating  the  symbolism  still  further,  and  thereby  throwing 
welcome  light  upon  the  origin  of  the  tradition.  The  added  traits  that 
Peter  asks  to  be  bidden  to  walk  with  Jesus  on  the  sea,  attempts  it, 
fails  from  lack  of  faith,  is  rescued  by  Jesus,  the  two  coining  then  to- 
gether to  the  disciples  in  the  boat  (Mt.  14:  28-31),  show  that  Matthew 
took  the  story  to  symbolize  that  of  Gethsemane,  when  Peter  offered 
to  share  Jesus'  martyrdom  and  quailed  before  the  storm;  but  (as  we 
learn  from  I  Cor.  15:  5;  Lk.  22:  32)  was  restored  by  Jesus  and  became 
the  "stablisher"  of  his  brethren.  Matthew's  interpretation  of  the 
symbolism  is  doubtless  correct.  R  here  dilates  upon  the  features 
which  correspond  to  the  helpless  plight  of  the  disciples  after  Jesus' 
arrest,  and  their  deliverance  by  his  reappearance,  after  having  shown 
their  incredulity  of  the  resurrection. 


1  To  this  day  it  is  a  stringent  rule  of  native  good-breeding  that  before  eating 
every  individual  within  hailing  distance  shall  be  invited  to  share  the  meal,  no  mat- 
ter now  humble  the  repast  or  how  great  the  difference  in  rank.  Needless  to  say 
the  Arab  tefaddal  ("do  me  the  honor")  is  more  form  than  reality. 


84 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


6:45-51 


45  And  straightway  he  constrained  his  dis- 
ciples to  enter  into  the  boat,  and  to  go  be- 
fore (him)  x[unto  the  other  side]  to 
Bethsaida,                 while  he  himself  sendeth 

46  the  multitude  away.  And  after  he  had 
taken  leave  of  them,  he  departed  into  the 

47  mountain  to  pray.  And  when  even  was 
come,  the  boat  was  in  the  midst  of  the  sea, 

48  and  he  alone  on  the  land.  And  seeing  them 
distressed  in  rowing,  for  the  wind  was  con- 
trary unto  them,  about  the  fourth  watch 
of  the  night  he  cometh  unto  them,  walking 
on  the  sea;  and  he  would  have  passed  by 

49  them:  but  they,  when  they  saw  him  walk- 
ing on  the  sea,  supposed  that  it  was  an 
2apparition,   and  cried  out:    for  they   all 

50  saw  him,  and  were  troubled.  But  he 
straightway  spake  with  them,  and  saith 
unto  them,  Be  of  good  cheer:  it  is  I;  be  not 

51  afraid.    And  he  went  up  unto  them  into  the 


1  Var.  omit  unto  the  other  side. 


2  Var.  a  demon. 


Vers.45-52=Mt. 
14:  22-33 

(Q?) 


Cf.  4:  35-41  and 
8:10 


Ver.  45.  To  Bethsaida.  On  the  east  shore  in  Philip's  territory. 
Matthew-Luke  omit.  The  addition  belongs  to  R's  geographical 
scheme.  The  first  Miracle  of  the  Loaves  takes  place  on  the  Jewish 
side  of  the  lake,  the  second  in  Decapolis.  But  see  note  on  ver.  53. 
Sendeth  the  multitude  away.  A  feature  of  the  original  story  =  8:  96. 
The  dismissal  of  the  assembly  is  a  function  of  the  presiding  elder  of 
the  Love-feast. 

Ver.  46.  The  mountain.  In  this  connection  the  hill  country  back 
of  Tiberias.  But  the  scene  in  the  mental  background  is  Gethsemane, 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives. 

Ver.  48.  Seeing  them  distressed  in  rowing.  Actual  sight  under  the 
circumstances  would  be  impossible,  but  R  is  thinking  of  the  night  of 
the  disciples'  despair  after  the  crucifixion.1  About  the  fourth  watch. 
The  hour  at  which  the  fast  commemorative  of  Jesus'  death  was  ter- 
minated by  a  Breaking  of  Bread  in  memory  of  the  resurrection. 
Walking  on  the  sea.  Christ's  triumph  over  death.  The  figure  is 
drawn  from  Ps.  77:  16,  19. 2 

Ver.  49.  The  depiction  of  Christ's  coming  to  comfort  the  fear 
and  distress  of  his  unbelieving  disciples  has  traits  recalling  Lk.  24: 
28,  37. 

Ver.  51.  Jn.  6:  21  alters.  "They  desired  to  take  him  into  the  boat; 
but  straightway  the  boat  came  to  the  land  whither  they  went"  (cf.  Ps. 

1  See  the  more  elaborate  development  of  the  allegory  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement 
to  James,  xiv  (Clem.  Horn.,  ca.  200  a.d).  God  is  the  shipmaster,  Christ  is  the 
pilot,  the  bishop  is  the  mate,  the  sailors  are  the  deacons,  midshipmen  the  cate- 
chists,  passengers  the  laity.  "Foul  winds  are  temptations,  persecutions  and  dan- 
gers, and  all  manner  of  afflictions  are  the  waves." 

2  In  the  Apocalypse  of  Zephaniah,  cxxv,  it  is  said  of  Antichrist,  "He  shall 
walk  on  the  sea  and  on  the  rivers  as  on  dry  ground."  But  this  is  doubtless  depend- 
ent on  Mark. 


6:52-55     THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD         85 


52  boat;  and  the  wind  ceased:  and  they  were 
sore  amazed  in  themselves ;  for  they 
understood  not  concerning  the  loaves,  but 
their  heart  was  hardened. 

53  And  when  they  had  Crossed  over,  they 
came  to  the  land  2[unto  Gennesaret],  and 

54  moored  to  the  shore.  And  when  they 
were  come  out  of  the  boat,  straightway 

55  (the  people)  knew  him,  and  ran  round 
about  that  whole  region,  and  began  to 
carry  about  on  their  beds  those  that  were 

1  Or,  crossed  over  to  the  land,  they  came  unto  Gennesaret. 

2  Var.  omit  [  ]. 


R 


Vers.53-56=Mt. 
14 :  34-36 

R  (Q?) 


107:  30).  This  secures  better  correspondence  with  the  experience  of 
the  Church.    And  the  wind  ceased.    Verbally  =  4:  39. 

Ver.  52.  Colophon  by  R.  The  disciples'  inability  to  understand 
the  Sign  of  the  Loaves  (doctrine  of  the  Cross  and  Resurrection)  shows 
them  still  under  the  veil  of  Judaism,  affected  by  its  "hardening" 
(cf.  7:  18;  8:  17-19;  Rom.  11:  7,  8;  Is.  29:  10). 

Vers.  53-56.  (Q?)  R.  Preliminary  Survey.  Critics  have  noted 
that  vers.  53-55  seem  framed  to  lead  up  to  some  specific  instance  of 
healing;  whereas  ver.  56  simply  generalizes.1  Q  (Mt.  12:  22  =  Lk.  11: 
14)  gave  in  fact  at  this  point,  as  occasion  for  the  Conflict  with  the 
Scribes  from  Jerusalem  (7:  1-23),  the  Unstopping  of  Deaf  Ears,  which 
Mark  defers  to  the  beginning  of  the  next  group  (7:  31-37).  The  sym- 
bolic sense  given  it  by  R  (see  note  ibid,  and  cf.  Is.  35:  15)  makes  the 
latter  a  more  appropriate  position.  Note  the  corresponding  setting 
of  the  Opening  of  Blind  Eyes  in  Bethsaida  (8:  22-26). 

Ver.  53.  Unto  Gennesaret.  R's  geography  is  vague  (cf.  5:  1,  14). 
The  doublet  (8:  10)  has  "Dalmanutha."  "Gennesaret"  is  known  only 
as  the  name  of  the  plain  on  the  northwest  shore  of  the  lake.  "Dal- 
manutha" is  unheard  of;  perhaps  a  corruption.  No  explanation  is 
given  why  the  voyage  shaped  toward  "the  other  side,  to  Bethsaida" 
(ver.  45),  ends  on  the  Jewish  side  (cf.  7:  Iff.)  at  "Gennesaret."  The 
incident  of  the  Loaves  was  probably  not  locally  fixed  in  the  sources, 
though  more  likely  historically  to  have  occurred  on  the  west  shore,2 
whither  crowds  could  readily  "follow  on  foot  from  all  the  cities,"  than 
in  Decapolis,  separated  from  "the  cities"  by  the  lake  and  the  Jordan. 
The  maladjustment  of  R  is  doubtless  due  to  the  difficulty  of  imposing 
his  theoretical  scheme  upon  the  sources.  The  scene  of  the  Collision 
with  the  Scribes  (7:  1-23)  could  only  be  in  Gennesaret.  In  Jn.  6:  50 
it  is  specifically  "Capernaum." 

Ver.  55.  Began  to  carry  the  sick  about  on  their  pallets.  The  con- 
ception is  slightly  different  from  ver.  56,  where  Jesus  travels  about 
from  place  to  place  and  the  sick  are  laid  in  the  market-places  (so  Acts 
5:  15,  16).  Here  he  is  at  a  given  station  and  the  sick  are  transported 
on  litters.  The  word  "pallet"  (a  Latinism  almost  unique)  is  the  same 
as  in  2:  4,  11,  and  suggests  the  possibility  that  the  healing  of  the 
paralytic  (2:  l-5a,  11,  12)  may  once  have  followed  at  this  point.    The 

1  Klostermann,  Marcus,  p.  146. 

2  One  tradition,  represented  by  the  reading,  "Tiberias  which  was  near  the  place 
where  they  ate  the  bread,"  in  N*,  locates  it  between  Tiberias  and  Magdala. 


86 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY    6:56—7:3 


56  sick,  where  they  heard  he  was.  And 

wheresoever  he  entered,  into  villages,  or 
into  cities,  or  into  the  country,  they  laid 
the  sick  in  the  Marketplaces,  and  besought 
him  that  they  might  touch  if  it  were  but 
the  border  of  his  garment:  and  as  many 
as  touched  2him  were  made  whole. 

7  And  there  are  gathered  to- 

gether unto  him  the  Pharisees,  and  certain 
of  the  scribes,  which  had  come  from  Jeru- 

2  salem,  and  had  seen  that  some  of  his  dis- 
ciples ate   their  bread  with  Mefiled,  that 

3  is,  unwashen,  hands.  For  the 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they 


1  p  text,  streets. 


2  Or,  it. 


3  Gr.  common. 


R 

Cf.  5:27,  28  and 
Ac,  5:  15,  16 


7:l-13=Mt.  15: 
1-9 

R(Q) 
(Mt.  23:  25,  26= 
Lk.  11:  37-41) 


only  other  occurrences  of  the  word,  save  in  the  dependent  passage, 
Jn.  5:  8-12,  are  in  Acts  5: 15;  9:  33. 

Ver.  56.  (R).  Cf.  Acts  5:  15,  16;  19: 11,  12.  Touch  the  border  (Gr., 
''tassel")  of  his  garment.  This  allusion  to  Jesus'  wearing  the  Jewish 
tsitsith  (Num.  15:  38,  39)  fails  to  appear  in  5:  27,  28,  doubtless  through 
cancellation  by  R,  for  both  parallels  exhibit  it  (Mt.  9:  20  =  Lk.  8:  44). 
In  his  generalized  reproduction  of  the  scene  R  now  himself  employs 
it,  perhaps  by  oversight.  Touched  htm.  Read  with  margin,  "it." 
The  wholesale  healings  by  mere  contact  with  Jesus'  sacred  garment 
are  manifestly  in  close  relation  to  Acts  5:  15,  16;  19:  11,  12;  but  the 
dependence,  if  any,  must  be  assumed  to  be  on  the  side  of  Luke  until 
evidence  appears  of  R's  use  of  Lukan  sources.  The  attitude  toward 
miracle  is  as  in  5:  30. 

7:  1-13.  Collision  with  the  Scribes  from  Jerusalem.  This  scene 
from  Q  (Mt.  12:  22-37  =  Lk.  11:  14-41)  has  been  in  part  anticipated 
by  prolepsis  in  3:  22-30.  R  now  dilates  upon  the  hypocrisy  of  the 
scribes  in  their  use  of  the  Law,  making  the  incident  of  the  Pharisees' 
complaint  against  the  disciples  for  neglect  of  the  ablutions  (QLK  11: 
37-41)  the  occasion  for  a  general  denunciation  of  the  ceremonial- 
ism of  the  Synagogue,  citing  the  Isaian  passage  similarly  employed 
by  Paul  (Col.  2:  22),  and  adding  an  instance  of  scribal  casuistry. 

Vers.  1,  2.  Repeated,  after  the  parenthetic  explanation,  in  ver.  5. 
Certain  .  . .  from  Jerusalem.  The  antagonists  proleptically  introduced 
in  3:  22  now  appear  as  a  delegation  from  Jerusalem  of  awe-inspiring 
authority  to  all  local  adherents  of  the  Synagogue.  The  covert  sneer, 
''He  casteth  out  by  Beelzebub,"  has  preceded.  This  having  been 
answered  "in  parables,"  whose  application  to  the  scribes  was  only 
indirect,  they  are  awaiting  an  opportunity  to  accuse  Jesus.  According 
to  Lk.  1 1 :  37  this  opportunity  came  at  the  midday  meal  in  the  house 
of  a  Pharisee. 

Vers.  3,  4.  The  description  of  Jewish  lustrations  is,  of  course,  in- 
tended for  readers  unfamiliar  with  them.  R  himself,  however,  is 
either  ill-informed  or  prejudiced,  or  both.  Such  narrow  ceremonialism 
was  far  from  characterizing  "all  the  Jews"  or  even  the  best  of  "the 
Pharisees."  R's  statement  better  deserves  the  name  of  a  travesty  or 
caricature,  applying  at  best  to  the  narrowest  circles  of  synagogue 


7*4-7 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


87 


wash  their  hands  Miligently,  eat  not,  hold- 
ing the  tradition  of  the  elders:  and  (when 
they  come)  from  the  marketplace,  except 
they  2wash  themselves,  they  eat  not:  and 
many  other  things  there  be,  which  they 
have  received  to  hold,  3washings  of  cups, 
and  pots,  and  brasen  vessels4.  And 

the  Pharisees  and  the  scribes  ask  him, 
Why  walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to 
the  tradition  of  the  elders,  but  eat  their 
bread  with  defiled  hands?  And  he 

said  unto  them,  Well  did  Isaiah  prophesy 
of  you  hypocrites,  as  it  is  written, 

This  people  honoureth  me  with  their  lips, 
But  their  heart  is  far  from  me. 
But  in  vain  do  they  worship  me, 
Teaching  (as  their)  doctrines  the  precepts 
of  men. 


1  Or,  up  to  the  elbow.     Gr.  with  the  fist. 

2  Gr.  baptize.     Var.  sprinkle  themselves. 

8  Gr.  baptizings.  *  Var.  add  and  couches. 


R(Q) 


(X) 


Is.  29:  13 


orthodoxy.  Even  its  language  ("washings  of  cups  and  pots  and 
brazen  vessels")  seems  to  be  suggested  by  Q  (Mt.  23:  25  =  Lk.  11:  39). 
Diligently  (?).  See  margin.  Later  mss.  and  versions  introduce  con- 
jectures. "No  explanation  hitherto  offered  is  wholly  satisfactory" 
(Swete).  Wash  themselves  (Gr.,  "bathe").  Some  texts  soften  to 
"sprinkle."  Even  this  would  be  a  great  exaggeration.  Pots  (Gr., 
xestae).  A  Graecised  form  of  the  Latin  sextarius.  Vessels.  Some 
texts  add  "and  (eating)  couches"  (see  margin).  R's  mental  back- 
ground is  the  table  and  its  appurtenances;  cf.  11:  9  and  Q  (Mt.  23:  25 
=  Lk.  11:  39).  The  Jews'  reluctance  to  defile  themselves  by  "eating 
with  the  Gentiles"  had  been  the  great  bone  of  contention  in  the  Church. 
Jewish  exclusiveness  is  here  depicted  as  specially  concerned  with 
lustrations  before  eating.  Parallels  can  be  adduced  from  the  Talmud1 
for  some  points  in  special  cases,  but  as  a  characterization  of  contem- 
porary Judaism  the  representation  is  misleading. 

Ver.  6.  The  quotation  is  from  the  same  chapter  (Is.  29:  13)  which 
furnishes  the  motif  of  this  whole  Division.  Nothing  in  the  question 
(ver.  5)  justifies  the  violence  of  the  outbreak;  but  R  is  really  contrast- 
ing Church  vs.  Synagogue.  The  quotation  is  applied  to  the  Jews 
("this  people")  and  their  religious  observances  ("vain  worship")  and 
doctrines  ("precepts  of  men";  cf.  Col.  2:  22). 

Vers.  8-13.  R  introduces  (note  the  duplication,  ver.  8  =  ver.  92)  an 
instance  from  the  interminable  disputes  of  Church  vs.  Synagogue. 
Rabbinic  casuistry  is  declared  to  make  the  claims  of  the  temple  treasury 
take  precedence  over  those  of  ordinary  humanity  and  filial  duty.  So 
far  as  the  charge  is  justified  it  rests  on  the  principle:  Duty  to  God  takes 
precedence  over  duty  to  man.    The  case  supposed  is  that  of  a  man 

1  Chaaigah  (ed.  Streane,  pp.  715ff.). 

2Wellhausen,  Mark,  p.  57,  "7:9-13  is  not  a  continuation  but  a  doublet  of 
7:  6-8." 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  7:8-14 


8  Ye  leave  the  commandment 
of  God,   and    hold  fast  the    tradition  of 

9  men.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Full 
well  do  ye  reject  the  commandment  of  God, 

10  that  ye  may  *keep  your  tradition.  For 
Moses  said,  Honour  thy  father  and  thy 
mother;  and,  He  that  speaketh  evil  of  father 

1 1  or  mother,  let  him  2die  the  death :  but  ye  say, 
If  a  man  shall  say  to  his  father  or  his  mother, 
That  wherewith  thou  mightest  have  been 
profited  by  me  is  Corban,  that  is  to  say, 

12  Given  (to  God) ;  ye  no  longer  suffer  him  to 
do  aught  for  his  father  or  his  mother;  mak- 

13  ing  void  the  word  of  God  by  your  3tradi- 
tion,  which  ye  have  delivered:  and  many 

14  such  like  things  ye  do.  And  he  called 
to  him  the  multitude  again,  and  said  unto 


1  Var.  establish. 


2  Or,  surely  die. 


3  0  var.  add  foolish. 


R 
(X) 


Ex.  20:  12;  21:17 
Dt.  5:  16 


Vers.l4-33=Mt. 
15:10-30 

R(Q) 


who  vows  to  God  his  earnings.  The  scribes  say,  "The  vow  cannot  be 
cancelled,  nor  the  earnings  withdrawn  from  the  temple  treasury,  even 
to  save  the  man's  aged  parents  from  destitution."  The  Church  had 
learned  from  Jesus  the  principle  of  humanity  as  the  prime  element  in 
duty  to  God  (Mt.  5:  23;  Mk.  2:  27;  3:  4). 

Ver.  9.  Full  well.    Render,  "Is  it  well  that  ye  reject?",  etc. 

Ver.  10.  Moses  utters  "the  commandment  of  God."  In  10:  1-10 
even  Moses'  utterance  recedes  before  a  higher  law.  But  the  argument 
is  so  far  ad  hominem.  The  scribes  admit  the  divineness  of  Moses' 
commandment,  yet  in  application  "nullify"  it. 

Ver.  11.  But  ye  say.  Probably  the  word  "say"  is  interpolated. 
The  verb  is  "suffer":  But  ye,  if  a  man  say  .  .  .,  no  longer  suffer.  That 
wherewith,  etc.  Less  clumsily,  "Thy  gain  from  me,"  i.e.,  pecuniary 
interest  in  my  earnings.  Corban.  The  Aramaic  term  for  a  thing  "dedi- 
cated" to  the  temple  treasury.    The  treasury  itself  is  so  called  in  Mt.27:  6. 

Ver.   12.  Such  a  vow  becomes  a  primary  claim  against  a  man's  wages. 

Vers.  14-23.  Abolition  of  Distinctions  of  Meats.  The  entire  para- 
graph is  an  elaboration  of  the  single  saying  (ver.  15),  which  is  indeed 
capable  of  very  sweeping  application,  but  cannot  have  been  under- 
stood by  the  Twelve  as  intended  to  abolish  the  Mosaic  distinctions  of 
meats.  The  Semite  knows  no  comparative  degree.  Hence  to  express 
the  thought:  Inward  (spiritual)  purity  is  more  pleasing  to  God  than 
abstinence  from  proscribed  meats  (cf.  Mt.  5:8),  the  natural  mode  of 
expression  is  as  in  ver.  1 5.  In  substance  at  least  it  is  a  parallel .  to  the 
Q  saying  on  cleansing  the  inside  (Luke,  of  the  man;  Matthew,  of  the 
dish)  rather  than  the  outside  (Mt.  23:25,  26  =  Lk.  11:39-41").  & 
is  more  radical  than  the  saying  or  practice  of  Jesus  really  warrants, 
in  declaring  that  by  this  utterance  he  abolished  all  the  Mosaic  distinc- 
tions of  meats  (ver.  19;  see  note). 

Ver.  14.  An  exordium  intended  to  emphasize  the  fundamental 
character,  far-reaching  significance,  and  general  applicability  of  the 
saying  to  follow  (cf.  the  addition  of  ver.  16  by  some  texts).  The 
multitude — always  available  to  R  when  the  lesson  concerns  the  public. 


7: 15-23 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


89 


them,  Hear  me  all  of  you,  and  understand: 

15  there  is  nothing  from  without  the  man, 

that  going  into  him  can  defile  him:  but 

the  things  which  proceed  out  of  the  man 

17  are  those  that  defile  the  man.  *And  when 
he  was  entered  into  the  house  from  the 
multitude,  his  disciples  asked  of  him  the 

18  parable.  And  he  saith  unto  them, 
Are  ye  so  without  understanding  also?  Per- 
ceive ye  not,  that  whatsoever  from  with- 
out goeth  into  the  man,  (it)  cannot  defile 

19  him;  because  it  goeth  not  into  his  heart, 
but  into  his  belly,  and  goeth  out  into  the 
draught?    (This  he  said,)  making  all  meats 

20  clean.  And  he  said,  That  which  pro- 
ceedeth  out  of  the  man,  that  defileth  the 

21  man.  For  from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of 
men,  2evil  thoughts  proceed,  fornications, 

22  thefts,  murders,  adulteries,  covetings,  wick- 
ednesses, deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye, 

23  railing,  pride,  foolishness:  all  these  evil 
things  proceed  from  within,  and  defile  the 
man. 


1  (3  var.  insert  ver.  16.     If  any  man  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him 
hear. 

2  Gr.  thoughts  that  are  evil. 


(Mt.  23:  25,  26= 
Lk.  11:39-41) 


R(Q) 
(Lk.  11:41) 


Ver.  15.  See  the  interpretation  in  vers.  17-23. 

Ver.  18.  Cf.  6:  52;  8:  17,  18.  R  remembers  the  slowness  of  the 
Twelve  to  admit  the  Pauline  denial  of  distinctions  of  meats  (Rom.  14: 
14;  Gal.  2:  14-16).  Note  the  double  answer,  vers.  18,  19  =  vers.  20-23; 
and  cf.  4:11,  12  =  13-20  and  7:8,  9.  The  method  of  introducing 
explanations  of  the  sayings  under  the  form  of  questions  by  the  dis- 
ciples in  private  existed  prior  to  R,  and  is  followed  elsewhere  (cf.  Mt. 
13:36-43). 

Ver.  19.  Wellhausen  disputes  the  translation  of  R.  V.,  and  makes 
"the  draught"  mean  the  larger  intestine,  and  this  the  agent  which 
"makes  clean."  On  the  grammatical  question  cf.  Swete.  The  issue 
in  either  event  is  the  same;  distinctions  of  meats  are  abolished.  R  is 
giving  the  sense  of  Lk.  11:41  (QLK)  in  the  spirit  of  Rom.  14:20; 
Tit.  1:  15;  Acts  10:  15  =  11:9. 

Vers.  20-23.  This  answer  contains  no  polemic  against  distinctions 
of  meats,  but  is  purely  edifying,  in  the  sense  of  Mt.  5:  8.  Impurity  of 
heart  is  that  which  most  debars  from  access  to  God.  An  evil  eye, 
railing  (Gr.,  "blasphemy").  Cf.  Lk.  11:  15ff.,  34.  If  the  occasion  be 
that  of  QLK  the  closing  items  of  the  list  have  special  bearing  against 
the  scribes  from  Jerusalem.  As  in  4:  10-25  the  duplicates,  vers.  18, 19 
and  vers.  20-23,  seem  to  represent  successive  stages  of  editorial  appli- 
cation. The  original  terse  saying  appears  in  Q  (Mt.  23:25,  26=Lk. 
11:  39-41).     R  adds  vers.  6-13  and  enlarges. 


90  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        7*24,25 


24  And  from  thence  he  arose,  and  went 
away  into  the  borders  of  Tyre  *[and  Sidon], 
And  he  entered  into  a  house,  and  would 
have  no  man  know  it:  and  he  could  not  be 

25  hid.  But  straightway  a  woman,  whose 
little  daughter  had  an  unclean  spirit,  hav- 
ing heard  of  him,  came  and  fell  down  at 

1  Var.  omit  and  Sidon. 


Vers.24-30=Mt. 
15:21-38 

(P) 


9 


Vers.  24-30.  Healing  of  the  Gentile  Woman's  Daughter.  The 
special  pertinence  of  this  incident  to  the  mind  of  R  seems  to  be  the 
implied  promise  of  "the  children's  bread."  In  the  form  exhibited  by 
Matthew  (Mt.  15:  21-28)  no  such  contrast  of  the  now  and  hereafter 
appears.  The  incident  is  purely  a  faith  lesson.  Because  the  woman's 
faith  was  so  great  (ver.  28)  exception  was  made  in  her  case  from  the 
rule  (not  given  by  Mark),  "I  was  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel"  (ver.  24).  Jesus  is  more  stringent  than  the  Twelve 
(ver.  23)  in  maintaining  the  rule  until  the  proper  ground  for  the  ex- 
ception appears  (cf.  Mt.  8:  5-13).  In  Mark  faith  is  not  mentioned. 
But  the  woman's  plea  is  made  the  occasion  for  explaining  the  seeming 
Jewish  exclusiveness  of  Jesus.  Her  plea  is  granted  because  she  accepts 
Jesus'  seemingly  repellent  answer,  indicating  in  her  reply  (see  note  on 
the  address,  "Lord")  the  right  attitude  of  mind  toward  this  divine 
dispensation  (Rom.  11:  17-22).  A  historical  incident  is  here  treated 
in  two  notably  different  ways,  neither  quite  adequate  to  the  fact. 
But  the  modern  apologetic  explanation,  which  treats  the  conduct  of 
Jesus  as  the  acting  of  a  part,  whether  for  the  woman's  benefit  or  the 
disciples',  is  worse  than  either.  The  vital  feature  apparent  from  com- 
parison of  Matthew  and  Mark  is  that  the  woman  s  answer,  humble, 
yet  full  of  faith,  was  received  by  Jesus  as  an  enlargement  of  his  own 
point  of  view.  The  finding  of  faith  in  this  unexpected  quarter  was  to 
him  an  intimation  from  the  Father  (cf.  Mt.  16: 17),  opening  his  eyes 
to  a  wider  extension  of  his  mission.  Mark  has  wandered  much 
further  than  Matthew  from  this  sense.  In  the  complete  transforma- 
tion which  his  treatment  effects  in  a  saying  (ver.  27)  which  Paulinists 
must  have  found  it  difficult  to  adjust  to  their  point  of  view,  if  not  in 
his  omission  of  that  (Mt.  15:  24  =  10:  6)  which  furnishes  the  real  point 
of  the  story,  we  may  perhaps  find  a  reason  why  R  might  prefer  this 
narrative  (from  P?)  to  that  which  in  Q  (Mt.  8:  5-10,  13  =  Lk.  7:  1-10) 
fulfilled  a  similar  doctrinal  function,  but  placed  the  petitioner  more 
in  the  attitude  of  a  "proselyte  of  the  gate."  To  commend  the  faith  of 
such,  as  against  Jewish  unbelief,  is  a  matter  within  the  capacity  even  of 
the  Pharisee  who  would  "compass  heaven  and  earth"  to  make  one. 
Matthew  himself  rejoices  in  the  coming  of  such  strangers  within  Israel's 
gates  (Mt.  8:  11,12).  But  to  go  forth  to  them  on  their  native  soil,  in  all 
their  native  paganism,  giving  them  a  foretaste  of  the  Messianic  bless- 
ings and  an  assurance  of  full  participation  in  due  time,  is  something 
more. 

Ver.  24.  Borders  (Matthew,  "parts")  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  Mark 
understands  by  this  expression  a  literal  crossing  the  frontier  of 
Phoenicia,  though  it  admits  the  sense  taken  by  Matthew,  who 
brings  the  woman  "out  from  those  borders"  to  Jesus.  The  va- 
riant reading  seems  to  be  the  correction  of  a  scribe  on  the  basis 
of  ver.  31. 


7t  26-30 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


91 


26  his  feet.  Now  the  woman  was  a  ^reek, 
a  Syrophcenician  by  race.  And  she  be- 
sought him  that  he  would  cast  forth  the 

27  devil  out  of  her  daughter.  And  he  said 
unto  her,  Let  the  children  first  be  filled: 
for  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's 

28  2bread  and  cast  it  to  the  dogs.  But  she  an- 
swered and  saith  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord: 
even  the  dogs  under  the  table  eat  of  the 

29  children's  crumbs.  And  he  said  unto  her, 
For  this  saying  go  thy  way;  the  devil  is 

30  gone  out  of  thy  daughter.  And  she  went 
away  unto  her  house,  and  found  the  child 
laid  upon  the  bed,  and  the  devil  gone 
out. 


1  Or,  Gentile. 


2  Or,  loaf. 


Ver  26.  Greek.  Mark  uses  the  word  in  the  sense  of  "Gentile." 
See  var.  rend. 

Ver.  27.  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  Christology  of  R  (e.g.,  1:  11; 
2:  10;  4:  41;  8:  38;  9:  7;  12:  37;  13:  32),  nor  even  with  his  conception 
of  the  foreknowledge  of  Jesus  (e.g.,  10:  32-34),  that  he  should  think 
of  him  as  really  sharing  the  Jewish  exclusiveness  reflected  in  this 
saying.  For  the  introduction  of  the  predictive  "first,"  and  the  use 
of  the  diminutive  of  endearment  in  the  word  for  "dogs"  does  not 
suffice  to  eradicate  the  sting,  but  only  to  partially  adapt  the  material. 
R  wishes  the  verse  to  be  understood  only  as  predictive,  but  the  older 
conception  escapes  the  cover. 

Ver.  28.  Lord.  No  one  in  this  Gospel  confesses  Jesus  as  "Lord" 
before  the  Triumphal  Entry  (11:  9),  except  in  Decapolis  (5:  19)  and 
here.  The  title  of  Rabbi  is  rendered  "Teacher"  (4:  38),  or  otherwise 
avoided. 

Ver.  30.  The  sequel  to  the  saying  of  Jesus  is  related  in  wholly  di- 
verse form  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  interest  of  the  source  seems 
to  have  been  concentrated  on  the  utterance.  We  have  no  means  of 
judging  how  much  there  was  to  give  color  to  this  supposed  healing  at 
a  distance. 


92  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


THE  SIGN  OF  THE  LOAVES  IN  DECAPOLIS 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  c.  7:31 — 8: 26.  From  Tyre  Jesus  traversed  the 
whole  extent  of  Phoenicia  to  Sidon;  then  by  the  road  to  Decap- 
olis  which  passes  Catsarea  Philippi  he  came  again  to  the  sea 
of  Galilee  from  the  eastern  side.  Here  he  miraculously  un- 
stopped the  ears  of  a  deaf  man,  the  process  showing  by  signs 
the  source  of  his  power.  By  this  miracle  the  multitude  were 
wrought  up  to  the  highest  pitch  of  wonderment.  For  these 
Gentiles  Jesus  then  repeated  the  Sign  of  the  Loaves  and  em- 
barking with  his  disciples  came  to  Dalmanutha  (?).  Assailed 
here  by  the  Pharisees  with  a  Demand  for  a  Sign  from  Heaven, 
he  peremptorily  refused  it  to  that  generation,  and  departed. 
In  the  boat  he  warned  his  disciples  against  the  Leaven  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Herod,  and  opened  their  minds  to  the  meaning 
of  the  Signs  of  the  Loaves.  Arrived  in  Bethsaida  he  mirac- 
ulously opened  the  eyes  of  a  Blind  man. 


SUBDIVISION  C    7:31—  8:26—  CRITICISM 

The  structure  and  significance  of  Subdivision  c  have  been  largely 
anticipated  in  our  discussion  of  Subdivision  b,  as  was  inevitable  from 
the  duplication  and  interweaving  of  parallel  material  by  R. 

It  remains  to  point  out  the  distinction  apparently  intended  between 
the  two  groups  which  makes  the  second  more  than  mere  repetition. 

To  lead  over  to  the  concrete  situation  required  by  his  fundamental 
source,  viz,  exile  on  the  northern  frontier,1  R  attaches  after  his  first 
Sign  of  the  Loaves,  the  Collision  with  the  Scribes  concerning  Jewish 
ceremonial  distinctions.  This  afforded  a  link,  very  appropriate  from 
the  religious  point  of  view,  between  the  Sign  of  the  Loaves  and  the 
Promise  to  the  Syro-Phoenician,  since  Jesus'  death  (considered  to  be 
symbolized  in  the  Breaking  of  Bread)  was  according  to  Paul  (Eph. 
2:  14-16)  the  breaking  down  of  this  ceremonial  barrier  of  special 
privilege  between  Jew  and  Gentile. 

For  his  second  Sign  of  the  Loaves  R  has  taken,  as  already  noted, 
the  healings  which  in  the  Q  material  preceded  the  Collision  with  the 
Scribes  in  6:  53 — 7:  23  and  made  of  them  a  symbolic  enclosing  frame 
in  7:  32-37  and  8:  22-26.  But  to  lead  over  a  second  time  to  the  geo- 
graphical situation  of  exile  on  the  northern  frontier  he  employs 
another  Collision  with  the  Pharisees  from  Q — or,  if  we  follow  Luke, 
another  element  of  the  same  collision — which  turns  upon  their  spiritual 
blindness  in  demanding  a  Sign  from  Heaven.2    R  stands  about  midway 


1  The  requirement  is  approximately  the  same  whether  we  reckon  7:  24-30  to 
P  or  not.  2  Mt.  12:  38-42;  16:  l-4=Lk.  11:  16,  29-32;  12:  54-56. 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD  93 

in  his  idea  of  the  nature  of  this  enigmatic  "Sign,"  between  Matthew, 
who  squarely  identifies  it  with  the  resurrection  after  three  days,1  and 
John,  who  has  two  solutions,  one  the  resurrection  after  three  days,2 
the  other  the  rite  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread  in  token  of  the  resurrec- 
tion.3 In  Mark  not  the  Jews  alone  are  blind  to  the  sign  of  Jonah,  or 
signs  of  the  times.  Rather  their  demand  is  met  with  a  peremptory 
refusal.4  It  is  the  disciples  who  receive  the  brunt  of  the  rebuke.  They 
have  twice  been  given  the  Sign,  and  still  are  so  bound  under  the  char- 
acteristic Jewish  obduracy  and  spiritual  blindness  that  they  ''do  not 
even  yet  understand."5 

Thus  in  the  two  successive  groups  which  relate  the  institution  of 
the  Breaking  of  Bread,  R  finds  a  way  to  bring  out  the  two  lessons  most 
vital  to  him  in  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  which  to  him  the  rite  pre- 
figures. It  is  (1)  a  token  of  the  abolition  in  Christ's  broken  body  of 
"the  law  of  carnal  ordinances  and  commandments"  which  formed 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  Jew  and  Gentile.  The  scribes' 
insistence  on  the  Jewish  prerogative  of  "cleanness"  only  led  Jesus  to 
carry  the  children's  bread  to  the  Gentiles.  (2)  It  is  a  token  of  the 
resurrection;  a  "sign"  denied  to  the  Jews,  and  which  the  disciples 
themselves  were  "slow  of  heart"  to  receive. 


i  Mt.  12:  40.  8  Jn.  2:  18-22.  3  Jn.  6:  30-51.  ■*  Mk.  8:  12;  see  note. 

6  8:  14-21. 


94  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        7: 31-34 


31  A  ND  again  he  went  out  from  the  borders 
J\.   of  Tyre,  and  came  through  Sidon  unto 

the  sea  of  Galilee,  through  the  midst 

32  of  the  borders  of  Decapolis.  And  they 
bring  unto  him  one  that  was  deaf,  and  had 
an  impediment  in  his  speech;  and  they 
beseech   him  to  lay  his  hand  upon  him. 

33  And  he  took  him  aside  from  the  multitude 
privately,  and  put  his  fingers  into  his  ears, 

34  and  he  spat,  and  touched  his  tongue;  and 
looking  up  to  heaven,  he  sighed,  and  saith 
unto  him,  Ephphatha,  that  is,  Be  opened. 


Vers.31-37=Mt. 
15 :  39-31 

R  (Q) 

(Mt.    12:  22-24= 

Lk.  11:  14-16) 


7:  31-37.  R  (Q).  Deaf  Ears  Unstopped.  This  paragraph  and  the 
Opening  of  Blind  Eyes  (8:  22-26)  are  pendants,  as  diction  and  con- 
ception attest.  It  belongs  to  the  distinctive  peculiarities  of  R  to  dilate 
upon  the  therapeutic  processes  of  the  healings  (cf.  5:  1-20;  9:  14-29), x 
especially  Jesus'  touch,  and  the  fruitless  effort  to  maintain  secrecy. 
These  features  are  made  specially  prominent  in  both,  together  with 
the  kindred  unique  feature  of  the  use  of  spittle.  Strange  phraseology 
("hearings"  for  "ears,"  "seeings"  for  "eyes,"  "hard-of -speech,"  "far- 
clearly,"  etc.)  connects  both  sections  with  the  Septuagint  as  much 
as  it  separates  them  from  New  Testament  style.  Finally,  the  reference 
to  Is.  29:  18-23  in  ver.  37  (cf.  Mt.  15:  31=9:  33,  with  Is.  29:  23),  and 
the  manner  in  which  the  two  enclose  the  symbolic  group  (8:  1-21), 
shows  that  R  is  using  his  material  for  a  symbolic  purpose.  Is.  29:  9-24, 
from  which  he  quotes  in  7:  6,  7,  suggests  the  course  of  thought. 
Matthew  summarizes  in  15:  29-31,  removing  the  two  healings  to 
9:  27-34.  At  the  same  time  he  so  greatly  conforms  to  Mk.  10:  46-52 
and  to  Q  (Mt.  12:22-24  =  Lk.  11:  14-16,  35  [?]),  although  retaining 
a  few  traces  of  Mark  (Mt.  9:  29,  30,  31,  33)  as  to  reveal  at  once  the  true 
traditional  root.  This  is  simply  the  Exorcism  of  a  Dumb  Devil,  with 
connected  Denunciation  of  Pharisaic  Blindness  (Q,  Mt.  12:  22=Lk. 
11:  14,  35).  It  is  symbolic,  not  historical,  interest  which  spurs  the 
"graphic"  genius  of  Mark  to  this  elaboration. 

Ver.  31.  Jesus  is  supposed  to  traverse  the  entire  region  once  in- 
cluded within  the  ideal  borders  of  Israel,  but  for  centuries  past  purely 
heathen  territory.  The  motive  of  R  is  apparent  from  the  connection 
formed  by  him  with  7:  1-23.  From  the  concurrent  witness  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  we  infer  that  the  representation  has  no  broader  basis  in 
genuine  historic  tradition  than  the  mention  of  Jesus'  withdrawal 
(from  Herod?)  into  "the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,"  i.e.,  the  northern 
frontier  of  Galilee2;  possibly  of  "Csesarea  Philippi"  also. 

Vers.  32-35.  On  the  motive  for  the  description  of  the  therapeutic 
process,  see  above.  On  that  for  introducing  the  Aramaic  word  Eph- 
phatha, see  on  5:  41.  The  sigh  is  not  a  "groan"  (Gould),  but,  accom- 
panied as  it  is  by  the  upward  glance,  simply  sign  language  for  the 


1  F.  P.  Badham  in  St.  Mark's  Indebtedness  to  St.  Matthew,  p.  44,  considers  "the 
frequently  trivial  character  of  these  details"  and  "the  tendency  to  emphasize  the 
marvelous"  a  "sign  of  decadence."  If  so,  decadence  had  already  begun  when  Paul 
rebuked  Corinthian  Christians  for  valuing  the  spectacular  gifts  of  "miracles," 
"healings,"  "tongues"  above  faith,  hope,  and  love. 

2  Josephus,  War  III,  xxxviii;  Ant.  XVIII,  vi.  3. 


7: 35— 8t  6 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


95 


35  And  his  ears  were  opened,  and  the  bond  of 
his  tongue  was  loosed,  and  he  spake  plain. 

36  And  he  charged  them  that  they  should  tell 
no  man:  but  the  more  he  charged  them,  so 
much  the  more  a  great  deal  they  published 

37  it.  And  they  were  beyond  measure  aston- 
ished, saying,  He  hath  done  all  things  well : 
he  maketh  even  the  deaf  to  hear,  and  the 
dumb  to  speak. 

8  In  those  days,  when  there  was  again  a 
great  multitude,  and  they  had  nothing  to 
eat,  he  called  unto  him  his  disciples,  and 

2  saith  unto  them,  I  have  compassion  on 
the  multitude,  because  they  continue  with 
me  now  three  days,  and  have  nothing  to 

3  eat:  and  if  I  send  them  away  fasting  to 
their  home,  they  will  faint  in  the  way;  and 

4  some  of  them  are  come  from  far.  And  his 
disciples  answered  him,  Whence  shall  one 
be  able  to  fill  these  men  with  *bread  here 
in  a  desert  place?    And  he  asked  them, 

5  How   many   loaves   have  ye?    And   they 

6  said,  Seven.  And  he  commandeth  the 
multitude  to  sit  down  on  the  ground:  and 
he  took  the  seven  loaves,  and  having  given 


1  Gr.  loaves. 


Is.  35:  5 


8:l-10=Mt.  15: 

32-39 
Cf.  6:  31-52 
(P?) 


appeal  to  God.1  The  description  is  indeed  graphic.  Intrinsic  evidence 
suggests  that  the  writer  had  himself  witnessed  such  scenes.  But  who 
among  Christians  of  his  period  had  not?  The  "gifts  of  healing"  were 
not  obsolete  in  75  a.d.  (Jas.  5:  14,  15). 

Ver.  36.  See  on  1:  45.  Matthew  transcribes  this  injunction  in  9:  30, 
using  now  the  extraordinary  Markan  expression,  "roaring  at  him"  of 
Mk.  1:43. 

Ver.  37.  The  superlative  astonishment  of  this  particular  healing  is 
traceable  in  all  the  parallels  (Mt.  9:  33  =  15:  312;  Q,  Mt.  12:  22,  23  = 
Lk.  11:  14;  cf.  Jn.  6:  14,  15).  The  occasion  for  its  mention  appears  in 
the  context  of  Q.  It  was  followed  by  the  contemptuous  comment  of 
the  scribes  from  Jerusalem,  "He  casteth  out  by  Beelzebub"  (Mt.  12: 
24ff.  =Lk.  11:  15ff.=Mk.  3:22-30;  7:lff.). 

8:  1-9.  Second  Miracle  of  the  Loaves.  As  before,  the  scene  is  so 
depicted  as  to  reflect  all  the  features  of  the  Church  ritual.  The  dia- 
logue with  the  disciples  is  not  psychologically  conceivable  if  the  miracle 
of  6:  35-44  had  preceded.    R's  differentiation  by  slight  changes  in  the 

1  Cf.  "Prayer  is  the  heaving  of  a  sigh, 

The  upward  lifting  of  an  eye, 
When  none  but  God  is  near." 

8  Taken  from  the  q  and  6  forma  of  Mark  respectively. 


96 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


8:7-12 


thanks,  he  brake,  and  gave  to  his  disciples, 
to  set  before  them ;  and  they  set  them  before 

7  the  multitude.  And  they  had  a  few  small 
fishes:  and  having  blessed  them,  he  com- 
manded  to   set   these   also   before   them. 

8  And  they  did  eat,  and  were  filled:  and 
they  took  up,  of  broken  pieces  that  re- 

9  mained  over,  seven  baskets.  And  they 
were  about  four  thousand:   and  he  sent 

10  them  away.  And  straightway  he  en- 
tered into  the  boat  with  his  disciples,  and 
came  into  the  parts  of  1Dalmanutha. 

11  And  the  Pharisees  came 
forth,  and  began  to  question  with  him, 
seeking  of  him  a  sign  from  heaven,  tempt- 

12  ing  him.  And  he  sighed  deeply  in  his 
spirit,  and  saith,  Why  doth  this  generation 
seek  a  sign?  verily  I  say  unto  you,  There 
shall  no  sign  be  given  unto  this  generation. 

1  /3  var.  Magadan. 


Vers.ll-13=Mt. 
16: 1-4 

R(Q) 
(Mt.    12:  38-42= 
Lk.  11:  16,  29- 
32) 


numbers  and  combination  in  the  reference  (8:  14-21)  does  not  affect 
this. 

Ver.  8.  Seven  baskets  (see  on  6:  43).  The  term  "basket"  means 
here  the  ordinary  receptacle.  If  the  numeral  has  any  significance 
aside  from  the  ordinary  use  of  sevens  it  is  probably  that  in  primitive 
celebration  of  the  Agape\  seven  deacons  served  the  tables  (Acts  6:  3). 

Ver.  9.  And  he  sent  them  away.    See  on  6:  45. 

Ver.  10  (cf.  6:  45-53).  Dalmanwtha.  Unknown,  perhaps  a  corrup- 
tion„  The  /?  text  assimilates  to  Matthew.  The  coming  forth  of  the 
Pharisees  implies  some  place  on  the  west  shore,  probably  on  the  plain 
of  Gennesaret. 

Vers.  11-13.  Demand  of  a  Sign  from  Heaven.  On  the  various  appli- 
cations in  our  Gospels  of  this  Q  saying,  see  above,  p.  92.  In  Q  (Mt.  12: 
38-42  =  Lk.  11:  16,  29-32)  the  demand  is  answered  by  an  offer  of  "the 
sign  of  Jonah,"  which  Luke  interprets  as  meaning  Jesus'  own  person- 
ality (Lk.  11:  30);  Matthew,  his  resurrection  (Mt.  12:  40).  In  Mt.  21: 
23-32  Jesus  answers  a  similar  demand  by  referring  to  "the  baptism  of 
John"  as  "from  heaven."  Such  was  probably  the  originally  intended 
reference  in  the  Q  passage.  Jn.  2:  18-22  applies  the  solution  of  Mt. 
12:40  (Jesus'  resurrection = the  sign  from  heaven)  in  the  connection 
of  Mt.  21:23-32.  Jn.  6:30-40  combines  that  of  Lk.  11:  30  (Jesus' 
own  personality  =  the  sign)  with  Mark  (the  Breaking  of  Bread  =  the 
sign)  and  Matthew  (the  resurrection = the  sign). 

Ver.  12.  There  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  this  generation.  Mark, 
whose  Gospel  is  largely  written  to  prove  Jesus'  claims  by  the  exhibition 
of  marvels,  could  not  treat  this  demand  as  indicative  of  a  wrong  spirit. 
Only  in  Q,  wherein  Jesus  treats  as  a  solicitation  of  Satan  the  sugges- 
tion that  he  shall  thus  employ  miraculous  power  (Mt.  4:  7  =  Lk.  4:  12), 
is  it  appropriate  to  speak  of  the  generation  as  "evil  and  adulterous" 
for  seeking  a  sign.     This  characterization  is  therefore  transferred  in 


8:13-19 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


97 


13  And  he  left  them,  and  again  enter- 
ing into  (the  boat)  departed  to  the  other  side. 

14  And  they  forgot  to  take  bread;  and  they 
had  not  in  the  boat  with  them  more  than 

15  one  loaf.  And  he  charged  them, 
saying,  Take  heed,  beware  of  the  leaven  of 
the  Pharisees  and  the  leaven   of  Herod. 

16  And    they    reasoned    one    with 

17  another,  laying,  2We  have  no  bread.  And 
Jesus  perceiving  it  saith  unto  them,  Why 
reason  ye,  because  ye  have  no  bread?  do 
ye  not  yet  perceive,  neither  understand? 

18  have  ye  your  heart  hardened?  Having 
eyes,  see  ye  not?  and  having  ears,  hear  ye 

19  not?  and  do  ye  not  remember?  When  I 
brake  the  five  loaves  among  the  five  thou- 
sand, how  many    3baskets  full  of  broken 

1  Var.  because  they  had  no  bread. 

2  Or,  It  is  because  we  have  no  bread. 

*  Basket  in  vers.  19  and  20  represents  different  Greek  words. 


Vers.  14-21 =Mt. 
16:5-13 

R(Q?) 


(Lk.  12:  1) 
R 


Mark  to  8:  38,  where  it  applies  to  the  Jews  as  rejecting  Jesus'  Messiah- 
ship.  But  this  is  less  appropriate.  "Adulterous"  is  used  in  the  sense 
employed  in  the  Old  Testament.  Miracles  were  habitually  referred  to 
the  action  of  angels,  spirits,  or  "demons"  (cf.  3:  22).  The  craving  for 
them  is  justly  regarded  by  Jesus  as  analogous  to  the  inveterate  dis- 
position of  Israel  in  the  days  of  the  prophets  to  "go  a-whoring  after 
false  gods."  As  R  employs  the  saying  it  becomes  simply  a  parallel  to 
4:  11,  12.  The  Pharisees  are  "outsiders."  Their  generation  shall  have 
no  sign  (see  next  note). 

Vers.  14-21.  Explanation  of  the  Sign  of  the  Loaves,  Instead  of  any 
of  the  various  interpretations  of  the  Sign  of  Jonah  (see  above,  p.  96), 
Mark  introduces  another  obscure  saying  from  QLK,  "Beware  of  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees,"  applying  it  to  the  plots  against  Jesus'  life, 
as  appears  from  the  addition  "and  of  Herod"  (cf.  3:  6;  12:  13).  On 
this  meager  basis  the  whole  development  of  8:  14-21  is  constructed, 
the  suggestion  doubtless  coming  from  the  term  "leaven."  It  is  meant 
as  a  foil  to  vers.  10-13.  The  Pharisees  and  their  evil  generation  vainly 
demand  a  sign.  The  disciples  are  in  danger  of  the  same  obtuse  spirit, 
but  are  taught  to  see  that  already  twice  the  Sign  from  heaven  has 
been  given  them  in  the  Breaking  of  Bread.  This  they  should  have 
perceived  after  the  first  experience  (6:  52).  Now  both  miracles  are 
recalled  to  their  minds  and  their  spiritual  perception  quickened. 

Ver.  14.  One  loaf.  J.  Weiss  thinks  this  a  trace  of  allegorizing.  The 
one  loaf,  all-sufficient  to  the  Church  in  spite  of  the  plots  of  the  enemy, 
is  its  Lord,  whose  broken  body  is  symbolized  in  the  bread.  This  may 
be  straining  a  point,  but  the  intention  to  give  a  symbolic  sense  to  the 
two  narratives  referred  to  is  apparent  in  the  citation  of  the  Isaian 
passage  on  "hardening"  (vers.  17,  18;  cf.  4:  11,  12;  6:  52). 

Ver.  16.  Wellhausen  justly  remarks  that  the  true  connection  of 
this  verse  is  not  with  ver.  15,  but  ver.  14.    The  reason  seems  to  be  that 


98 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        8:  20-23 


pieces  took  ye  up?    They  say  unto  him, 

20  Twelve.  And  when  the  seven  among  the 
four  thousand,  how   many  xbasketfuls   of 

21  broken  pieces  took  ye  up?  And  they  say 
unto  him,  Seven.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Do  ye  not  yet  understand? 


22 


23 


And  they  come  unto  bethsaida.  And 
they  bring  to  him  a  blind  man,  and  be- 
seech him  to  touch  him.  And  he  took  hold 
of  the  blind  man  by  the  hand,  and  brought 
him  out  of  the  village;  and  when  he  had  spit 
on  his  eyes,  and  laid  his  hands  upon  him, 


1  p  var.  Bethany. 


Vers.22-26=Mt. 
9:27-31;  cf. 

Mt.  15:  29-31 
R(Q?) 
(Mt.  12:  22,  23= 
Lk.  11:  14,34- 
36;  cf.  Jn.  9:  1- 
41;  10:  19-21) 


ver.  15  was  taken  up  ready  made,  while  the  rest  of  vers.  14-21  is 
written  to  provide  a  framework  for  it,  as  in  3:  20,  21,  31-35,  enclosing 
3:  35,  and  in  6:  1-6,  enclosing  6:  4. 

Vers.  22-26.  Opening  of  Blind  Eyes.  On  the  development  by  R  of 
this  symbolic  healing  and  its  pendant  (7:  31-37),  see  the  note  ibid. 
The  spirit  of  blindness  poured  out  on  Israel  according  to  prophecy 
(Is.  29:  10,  18,  19),  in  which  even  the  Twelve  have  just  been  shown  to 
participate  (vers.  17,  18),  is  removed  in  this  typical  instance,  as  the 
Gentile  woman  had  previously  been  given  a  foretaste  of  the  salvation 
promised  to  the  Gentiles  (7:  24-30).  The  symbolism  is  more  elabo- 
rately developed  in  Jn.  9:  1-41  in  connection  with  the  denunciation  of 
the  Pharisees  for  the  unforgivable  sin  of  willful  blindness,  a  combina- 
tion of  Mark  and  Q  (Mt.  12:  22-45  =  Lk.  11:  14-32).  The  Lukan  form 
does  not  contain  the  healing  of  the  blind  man  (on  account  of  its  re- 
semblance to  Mk.  10:  46-52?),  but  has  instead  the  Q  saying  on  Inward 
Light  (Mt.  6:22,  23  =  Lk.  11:34-36).  It  becomes  a  very  difficult 
matter  to  decide  whether  Mark  had  a  basis  in  Q  for  this  healing,  or 
merely  follows  Is.  29:  18.  The  fact  that  the  substance  of  the  story 
disagrees  with  the  geographical  setting  favors  the  former.  For 
Bethsaida  was  more  than  a  "village,"  more  even  than  a  "village- 
city."  It  was  a  "city,"  as  Luke  calls  it  (Lk.  9:  10),  having  been  created 
such  by  Philip.1  The  "village"  of  this  incident  (vers.  23,  26)  is  there- 
fore not  Bethsaida  in  the  intention  of  the  original  narrator,  unless  we 
hypothesize  a  Bethsaida  separate  from  the  city.  The  situation  is  such 
as  is  led  up  to  by  6:  54,  55,  and  the  collocation  of  "blind  and  dumb" 
in  Mt.  12:  22  suggests  this  position.  Matthew's  generalizing  substitute 
for  the  pair  of  pendants  (Mt.  15:  29-31)  combines  "blind"  and  "dumb" 
in  ver.  30,  and  "dumb"  and  "blind"  in  ver.  31.  The  pairing  of  the 
two  in  Mt.  9:  27-34  is  also  significant. 

Ver.  23.  Brought  him  oat  of  the  village.  The  village  is  not  the 
man's  home,  but  the  place  where  Jesus  was  staying  (see  note  pre- 
ceding and  cf.  6:  55).  Jesus  leads  him  out  into  the  country  to  avoid 
publicity,  and  then  sends  him  home  by  a  way  which  does  not  lead  back 
to  the  village  (ver.  26).  Spit  on  his  eyes  (see  note  on  7:  31-37).  Jn. 
9:  6,  7  develops  the  trait. 


1  Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII,  ii.  1;  War  II,  ix.  1. 


8: 24-26 


THE  BREAKING  OF  THE  BREAD 


99 


24  he  asked  him,  Seest  thou  aught?  And  he 
looked  up,  and  said,  I  see  men;  for  I  behold 

25  (them)  as  trees,  walking.  Then  again  he 
laid  his  hands  upon  his  eyes;  and  he  looked 
stedfastly,  and  was  restored,  and  saw  all 

26  things  clearly.  And  he  sent  him  away  to 
his  home,  saying,  Do  not  even  enter  into 
the  village. 


Vers.  24,  25.  R  dilates  upon  the  man's  gradual  emergence  from 
blindness  (cf.  9:  20-27).  The  interest  in  both  descriptions  is  sym- 
bolical (cf.  Is.  43:  8;  29: 18).  Two  stages  are  expected  in  Israel's 
conversion,  first  the  elect  remnant,  afterward  all  Israel  (Rom.  11: 
5-7,  26). 

Ver.  24.  (Them)  as  trees  (so  Greek).  But  the  sense  is  "things  like 
trees  that  walk."  A  tree-trunk  (the  part  a  blind  man  can  feel)  is  in 
size  and  shape  like  the  human  figure. 


INTRODUCTION 

Doctrinally,  geographically,  and  historically  the  most 
definite  milestone  of  the  Gospel  is  at  the  scene  of  Csesarea 
Philippi.1  The  theme  Who  is  Jesus?  What  is  his  relation  to 
the  Baptist  and  what  his  mission  and  fate?  had  indeed  been 
broached  in  that  of  Herod's  Comment,2  to  say  nothing  of 
the  anticipation  in  the  prediction  of  the  taking  away  of  the 
Bridegroom.3  It  had  even  been  symbolically  foreshadowed 
in  the  two  groups  of  incidents  connected  with  the  Breaking 
of  Bread.  But  with  the  scene  of  Csesarea  Philippi,  Mark 
reaches  the  culminating  point  of  his  Gospel.  True,  it  has 
not  to  him  the  significance  which  modern  interpreters  have 
attempted  to  read  into  it,  whenever  the  desire  to  find  in  "our 
oldest  source"  the  actual  course  of  events  overcame  the 
candor  of  unbiased  exegesis.  However  probable  the  fact 
that  the  suggestion  of  Jesus'  being  the  Messiah  was  now 
advanced  for  the  first  time,  such  is  certainly  not  the  view 
of  our  evangelist.  That  which  the  demons  had  been  shriek- 
ing since  their  first  encounter  with  Jesus4  he  does  not  con- 
sider to  have  been  hitherto  concealed  from  those  to  whom 
Jesus  had  given  "the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."5 
For  him  the  resumption  of  the  current  rumors  of  6:  14, 
leading  to  Peter's  answer  on  behalf  of  all,  "Thou  art  the 
Christ,"  introduces  no  startling  novelty.  Peter's  answer 
elicits  from  Jesus  nothing  but  a  renewal  of  the  charge  not 
to  reveal  the  "mystery."  It  does,  however,  thus  pave  the 
way  for  that  which  is  really  to  R  the  new  and  startling  an- 
nouncement, viz,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Cross.6  We  have  in 
Mark,  accordingly,  nothing  of  Matthew's  commendation  of 
Peter's  avowal  as  a  revelation  from  God,  nothing  of  the 
designation  of  Peter  as  the  "Rock "-foundation  of  the 
Church.  Simply  a  scathing  rebuke  of  his  carnal  Handed- 
ness for  not  accepting  the  unpalatable  tenet  of  the  cross,  and 
a  beginning  of  the  indoctrination  of  the  Twelve  in  the  Chris- 
tian principle  of  losing  one's  life  to  save  it. 

The  cardinal  point  of  Gospel  story  is  thus  reached  by  our 
evangelist.  As  we  shall  see,  the  really  distinctive  teaching 
of  Jesus  begins  for  him  with  the  first  Division  of  Part  Second, 


»8:27ff.  2  6:14-16.  s  2:  20.  *  1:  24.  34;  3: 11;  5:  7. 

6  4: 11.  °Ver.  31. 

103 


104  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

and  characterizes  it  throughout.  Previously  there  has  been 
nothing  but  the  proclamation  of  the  approach  of  the  King- 
dom and  (to  the  disciples)  the  manifestation  of  Jesus'  true 
dignity.  At  this  epoch-making  point  of  the  Gospel  we  are 
justified  accordingly  in  pausing  for  brief  consideration  of 
the  most  vital  question  of  historical  criticism,  What  was 
Jesus'  own  conception  of  his  mission? 

It  is  from  the  period  of  exile  in  the  north  that  all  the 
Synoptists  date  the  new  phase  of  Jesus'  activity  which 
ends  with  his  martyrdom  in  Jerusalem.  And  with  good 
reason.  Excluded  from  his  field  of  effort  for  the  religiously 
disinherited  masses  in  Galilee,  Jesus  faced  the  alternative 
of  abandonment  of  his  mission,  or  else  the  extension  of  it. 
in  spite  of  greater  danger,  to  judsea.  Systematic  activity 
among  the  Gentiles,  in  spite  of  Markan  and  Johannine 
symbolism,1  is  not  really  likely  to  have  entered  his  mind. 
Abandonment  of  the  cause  of  the  "little  ones,"  the  "lost 
sons!'  of  Israel,  was  even  more  inadmissible.  Jesus  there- 
fore "set  his  face  steadfastly"  (Gr.,  "hardened  his  face") 
to  go  up  to  Jerusalem. 

But  here  he  would  confront  a  different  enemy,  in  a  differ- 
ent stronghold.  The  usurpation  of  the  scribes  and  their 
adherents  the  Pharisees  in  the  Galilean  synagogues,  had  of 
course  its  counterpart  on  a  larger  scale  in  Jerusalem  also; 
but  in  Judsea  there  was  besides  this  the  greater  usurpation, 
of  longer  standing,  by  the  Sadducean  hierocracy  in  the 
temple.  Here  had  been  the  proper  center  of  Israel's  na- 
tional and  religious  life,  the  true  house  of  Yahweh.  But 
this  center  had  fallen  under  control  of  an  utterly  degenerate 
and  worldly  priesthood,  successors  to  the  self-seeking  later 
Maccabees.  Behind  these  as  their  support  couched  the 
grim  specter  of  Roman  authority,  far  more  menacing  than 
any  threats  of  the  "jackal"  of  Galilee,  fatal  as  his  power 
had  proved  to  Jesus'  great  predecessor. 

It  seems  to  be  the  intention  of  our  evangelist,  and  not  his 
alone,  but  that  of  the  more  fundamental  tradition  (P)  which 
forms  the  underlying  basis  of  Synoptic  narrative,  to  represent 
that  Jesus  at  this  time,  on  the  suggestion  drawn  by  him 
from  Simon  Peter,  assumed  in  the  confidential  circle  of  the 
Twelve  the  wholly  new  role  and  title  of  "the  Christ,"  a  title 
as  yet  necessarily  lacking  all  Christian  attributes,  and  signi- 
fying simply  the  expected  Deliverer  of  Israel.2  The  indica- 
tions which  point  to  this  revelation  of  the  Messiahship  as 

1  With  Mk.  6-9  cf.  Jn.  12:  20-41.  2  Lk.  24:  21;  Jn.  1:  41.  49. 


INTRODUCTION  105 


the  witness  of  P  are  all  the  more  convincing  that  R  has  left 
scarcely  an  approach  to  it.  For  him  the  word  has  the  full 
Christian  sense.  Messiahship  is  something  quite  insepar- 
able from  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  which  was  the  very  start- 
ing-point of  his  story,  and  is  assumed  to  be  known  to  the 
Twelve  from  the  outset.1  Hence  no  stress  whatever  is  laid 
on  Peter's  reply  to  the  question,  Who  say  ye  that  I  am?  It 
is  almost  a  matter  of  course  to  reply,  ''Thou  art  the  Christ." 
The  only  comment  upon  it  is  a  renewal  of  the  injunction  of 
secrecy  before  proceeding  to  the  Prediction  of  the  Cross, 
which  for  R  is  the  main  point,  and  the  sole  occasion  for 
the  prominence  of  Peter.  For  in  Mark,  as  we  have  it,  Peter, 
who  now  appears  for  the  first  time  in  a  separate  role,  is  in- 
troduced not  as  the  first  confessor  and  thus  founder  of  the 
Church,2  but  solely  as  the  instrument  of  "Satan"(!)  in 
opposing  the  doctrine  of  the  Cross. 

That  this  was  not  the  original  sense  of  the  narrative  is  as 
certain  as  any  fact  in  the  domain  of  historical  criticism  can 
be.  The  very  language  of  the  rebuke  is  borrowed  from  Q.3 
The  innumerable  traces  of  Peter's  position  as  leader  of  the 
apostolic  group,  and  countless  internal  marks  of  the  tradition 
are  enough  to  show  that  our  Mark,  whatever  basis  of  fact 
he  rests  upon4  for  the  P  rebuke,  has  not  done  justice  to  the 
Confession.  Something  occurred  at  Csesarea  Philippi  to 
which  the  Church  looked  back  in  after  years  as  marking  its 
own  beginning.  And  in  that  occurrence  it  found  an  honor- 
able part  for  Peter. 

It  is  true  that  Matthew  presents  a  view  which  is  also  dis- 
torted, though  in  the  reverse  direction.  In  that  Gospel,  as 
in  Mark,  the  title  and  role  of  Messiah  are  unhistorically  car- 
ried back  to  the  beginning.5  Our  first  evangelist  is  as  in- 
capable as  our  second  of  understanding  the  divine  sonship 
which  Jesus  claims  in  Q6  in  the  simple  religio-ethical  sense 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.7  He  would  have  to  cease  to 
be  a  Christian  of  the  second  or  third  generation  to  do  so. 
He  is  perhaps  even  more  anachronistic  than  Mark  in  that  he 
presents  the  Confession  of  Peter  as  if  its  real  significance  were 
the  Founding  of  the  Church,  an  event  subsequent  to  the 
crucifixion.  But  traces  remain  in  abundance  even  in  Mat- 
thew's narrative  to  prove  that  it  really  concerns  itself  with 
the  Confession  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  by  Peter  for  the  first 
time?    There  is  also  much  in  the  conditions  as  otherwise 


1 1:  11,  24,  34;  2:  7,  10,  28;  3: 11;  4:  11.  41,  etc.  acf.  Mt.  16:  16-19. 

3  Mt.  4:  10=Lk.  4:  8.  *  See  9:  5,  6.  note.  6  cf.,  e.g.,  Mt.  14:  33. 

•Mt.  11:  27=Lk.  10:  22.  *  Mt.  5:  48=Lk.  6:  36  8Mt.  16:  17-20. 


106  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

known  to  indicate  that  such  was  the  historic  fact.  In  other 
words,  we  should  really  ascribe  to  Peter  this  earlier  distinc- 
tion, of  having  first  applied  to  Jesus  the  title  of  "Christ," 
or  at  least  of  having  attributed  to  him  the  role  of  Deliverer 
of  Israel,  before  he  became  by  his  faith  in  Jesus'  resurrection 
the  founder  of  the  Church.  For  not  even  the  suppression  of 
the  original  ending  of  our  Gospel1  can  deprive  Peter  of  the 
glory  of  having  been  first  after  the  crucifixion  to  "turn 
again"  and  "stablish  his  brethren."2  But  had  he  played 
a  similar  part  before? 

Many  critics  of  note  have  questioned  the  credibility  of 
this  alleged  Confession,  regarding  all  that  gives  the  color 
of  a  public  messianic  appeal  to  Jesus'  journey  to  Jerusalem 
as  the  carrying  back  of  later  ideas.  Such  indeed  is  stated 
in  so  many  words  to  be  the  case  regarding  the  Triumphal 
Entry  in  Jn.  12:  16.  Yet  there  remain  certain  unalterable 
facts  that  seem  to  preclude  the  entire  dissipation  of  the 
tradition  that  Jesus  was  hailed  once  and  again  as  the  Messiah, 
and  if  so  his  own  action  must  have  involved  something  more 
than  mere  preaching  and  healing,  to  give  color  to  the  idea. 
From  Caesarea  Philippi  a  change  does  take  place  in  the 
nature  of  his  ministry. 

For  some  reason  Jesus  did  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  throw 
down  the  gauntlet  in  the  face  of  the  priestly  hierocracy  in 
the  temple  itself.  For  some  reason  he  did  follow  a  role  that 
led  to  his  execution  by  Pilate  as  a  political  agitator.  For 
some  reason  his  followers,  very  shortly  after,  did  ascribe  to 
him  not  mere  reappearance  from  the  tomb,  but  exaltation 
to  the  place  of  the  Messiah  "at  the  right  hand  of  God" — 
attributes  so  exalted  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  they  had 
no  other  foundation  than  mere  reverence  for  an  admired 
Teacher.  No;  from  the  moment  of  his  coup  d'6tat  upon  the 
temple  Jesus'  career  passes  beyond  that  of  the  mere  rabbi, 
or  even  prophet.  The  traditions,  distorted  as  they  are,  of  a 
momentous  consultation  with  the  Twelve  in  exile,  issuing 
in  a  concerted  movement  under  pledge  of  secrecy  of  this 
quasi-political  type,  do  not  conflict  with  subsequent  develop- 
ments, but  rather  explain  them.  It  is  true  that  "  the  Christ" 
is  never  Jesus'  title  for  himself,  and  on  the  sole  occasion  out- 
side the  present  when  it  seems  to  be  admitted,3  the  admis- 
sion in  both  parallels,  and  even  as  it  would  seem  in  Mark's 
own  model,4  is  as  it  were  under  protest.     Even  in  the  present 


1  See  Division  VI,  Criticism,  Subd.  c.  2  Lk.  22:  32. 

3  14:  62=Mt.  26:  64=Lk.  22:  67. 

4  Mk.  14:  55-64  seems  to  be  a  mere  editorial  replica  of  15:  1-5;  see  notes  ibid. 


INTRODUCTION  107 


instance  Peter's  "Confession"  is  immediately  followed  by  a 
Rebuke  which  removes  all  political  and  theocratic  signifi- 
cance from  the  suggestion  as  soon  as  made.  We  must  also 
admit  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  entire  teaching  of 
Jesus  and  his  activity  up  to  the  period  of  exile  that  he 
should  have  allowed  the  title  "the  Christ"  to  be  applied  to 
him  in  any  sense  save  one  almost  too  remote  from  the  cur- 
rent conception  to  make  its  use  conducive  to  right  under- 
standing. In  one  respect,  however,  it  did  correspond  to  the 
ideal  to  which  Jesus  was  now  committed.  He  had  become 
the  leader,  champion,  and  vindicator  of  the  disinherited 
"sons."  If  their  claim  to  "the kingdom"  was  now  to  be 
presented  to  the  full  limit  of  its  content,  at  the  center  of 
national  and  religious  life,  "the  Son"  who  should  present  it 
on  behalf  of  his  brethren — and  not  only  present  but  obtain  it 
since  it  was  the  "good  pleasure  (i.e.,  decree)  of  the  Father 
to  give  them  the  kingdom" — must  in  the  truest  and  highest 
sense  of  the  word  be  a  "Messiah"  of  this  flock.  For  the 
messianic  hope  is  before  all  else  the  aspiration  to  sonship. 
Its  most  fundamental  and  oldest  phase  is  not  the  theocratic. 
This  was  a  mere  later  adaptation  to  the  institution  of  the 
monarchy  (II  Sam.  7: 14).  Primarily  the  messianic  hope  is 
the  belief  that  Israel  as  a  people  is  Yahweh's  "son,"  his 
first-born,  redeemed  from  bondage  and  called  out  of  Egypt 
(Ex.  4:  22;  Hos.  11:1).  True  the  belief  had  at  first  far  more 
of  mere  nationalism,  perhaps  more  of  actual  primeval  Semi- 
tic nature  worship,  than  of  ethical  content.  But  the  prophets 
differentiated  Israel's  relation  to  Yahweh  from  that  of  the 
Canaanite  to  Baal,  as  a  relation  of  adoption;  and  Pharisa- 
ism infused  mere  nationalism  with  an  ethico-religious  con- 
tent unknown  before.1  To  Jesus  the  reinstatement  of  the 
lost  sons  in  their  filial  relation  to  God  was  the  aim  in  view. 
This  was  indeed  primarily  and  supremely  a  matter  for  indi- 
vidual development  in  the  ethical  characteristics  attributed 
to  the  Father  in  heaven  (Mt.  5 :  43-48  =  Lk.  6 :  27-36) .  But 
it  did  not  stop  there.  All  the  secondary  good  things  which 
belonged  to  the  current  ideal  of  "the  kingdom  of  God"  were 
to  be  "added"  to  his  disciples.  If  we  suppose  that  now, 
confronting  the  alternative  either  of  abandonment  or  en- 
largement of  his  work,  Jesus  had  resolved  to  present  the  de- 
mand of  his  little  flock  at  the  very  center  of  usurpation,  and 
to  present  it  to  the  full,  there  was  no  name  better  adapted 
to  his  purpose  than  that  of  "the  Christ,"  provided  that  title 
could  be  stripped  of  all  its  theocratic  acquired  connotations 

1  See  Jubilees  i.  24,  25. 


108  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

and  made  to  mean  simply  He  who  brings  Israel  into  its  pre- 
destined relation  of  sonship  to  God. 

Pharisaism,  as  noted,  had  already  done  much  to  accom- 
plish this  refinement  of  the  messianic  hope.  In  resisting 
Sadducean  worldliness  on  the  one  side  and  Zealot  national- 
ism on  the  other  the  Pharisees  had  gone  far  toward  develop- 
ing a  messianic  ideal  worthy  to  represent  the  noblest  tradi- 
tions of  the  past.  Witness  the  Psalms  of  the  Pharisees,  or 
the  prayer  of  Moses  in  Jubilees  1 :  24.  Israel's  hope  is  at- 
tained when  by  the  infusion  of  God's  Spirit  of  righteousness, 
all  are  obedient  to  his  law  and  partake  of  his  holy  nature. 
Then  dominion  over  the  world  shall  be  given  them.  But 
Jesus'  ideal  is  not  identical  with  the  Pharisaic.  The  dis- 
tinction drawn  by  the  Pharisee  is  that  of  the  present  and  the 
hereafter.  Obedience  now,  reward  then.  Jesus'  primary 
distinction  is  of  outward  vs.  inward.  Not  the  requirement 
only,  the  law,  is  made  inward,  but  the  reward  as  well.  The 
kingdom  is  not  merely  a  future,  but  an  inward  kingdom.1 
Sonship  consists  not  primarily  in  the  external  condition  but 
in  the  spiritual  relation. 

For  this  reason  the  categories  of  Pharisaic  religion  are  not 
congenial  or  adequate  to  Jesus;  nor  can  we  accept  the  idea 
that  its  apocalyptic  "world  to  come"  represented  to  him  the 
acme  of  religious  aspiration.  The  apocalyptic  eschatology 
with  its  definite  scheme  of  future  reward  was  congenial  to 
Pharisaism  and  completely  satisfactory  to  its  religious  ideal. 
To  Jesus  it  could  not  be  so.  The  distinctions  of  now  and 
hereafter  represent  not  his  conclusions  but  his  data,  service- 
able until  superseded,  as  they  are  already  beginning  to  be  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  by  conceptions  more  in  harmony  with  his 
doctrine  of  sonship  and  his  fundamental  distinction  of  in- 
ward vs.  outward.  For  a  like  reason  the  apocalyptic  figure 
of  the  Son  of  man  could  not  be  Jesus'  "  favorite  self-designa- 
tion." He  was  not  a  visionary  and  fanatic,  who  believed 
himself  destined  within  the  lifetime  of  his  followers  to  be 
brought  back  from  the  underworld  as  the  Danielic  "  Son  of 
man"  on  the  clouds  of  heaven.  Such  apocalyptic  fanati- 
cism is  the  characteristic  not  of  the  sane  and  well-poised 
mind  of  the  plain  mechanic  of  Nazareth,  but  of  Pharisaism 
in  his  own  time  and  of  the  later  generation  of  his  followers. 
It  is  the  enthusiastic  Church,  ecstatically  endowed  with 
the  Spirit  of  " prophecy,"  "tongues,"  and  "revelations," 
which  sees  Jesus  as  "the  Son  of  man"  coming  on  the  clouds 
of  heaven.      The  Son   of  man  of   whom   Jesus  speaks  is 

i  Lk.  17:  21. 


INTRODUCTION  109 


simply  the  conventional  figure,  not  necessarily  himself,  who  is 
to  be  the  agent  of  God's  vindication  in  the  coming  judgment. 

Our  conclusion  must  be  that  Jesus  was  neither  Zealot  nor 
Pharisee.  If  he  at  all  admitted  the  application  to  himself 
of  strictly  messianic  titles  and  attributes,  it  was  in  a  purely 
ethico-religious  sense,  and  only  for  the  preservation  of  that 
deepest  and  most  vital  element  of  the  messianic  hope — the 
sonship  of  Israel. 

After  all,  the  question  whether  Jesus  at  this  time  accepted 
or  rejected  the  title  of  "the  Christ"  which  Peter  offered  is 
mainly  a  question  of  "words  and  names."  The  really 
material  fact  is  that  from  this  point  begins  a  new  phase  of 
his  activity  which  inevitably  led  to  a  messianic  outcome, 
even  if  he  himself  had  neither  the  ambition  nor  expectation 
of  being  proclaimed  "the  Christ."  Certain  it  is  that  in  the 
face  of  increasing  dangers  he  now  resolved  to  assume  a 
leadership  in  the  cause  of  the  lost  sons  which  would  involve 
a  championing  of  their  cause  against  the  central  hierocratic 
stronghold,  the  temple  itself.  Equally  certain  it  is  that  he 
undertook  the  unequal  contest  in  no  self-seeking  spirit,  but 
with  full  realization  of  its  probable  issue. 

His  Galilean  followers,  on  the  other  hand,  can  hardly  have 
viewed  the  proceeding  in  the  same  disinterested  light. 
Grant  that  the  introduction  of  the  messianic  title  in  the 
mouth  of  Peter  at  this  point  may  be  an  anticipation,  surely 
nothing  can  be  more  intrinsically  probable  than  a  collision 
at  just  this  turn  of  events  between  Jesus'  conception  of  the 
career  to  which  the  voice  of  God  was  summoning  him,  and 
the  disciples'  conception,  voiced  by  Peter.  Master  and  dis- 
ciples were  indeed  agreed  that  the  time  had  come  for  action, 
for  protest  in  Jerusalem  itself,  and  against  the  usurpations 
not  of  those  who  "sat  in  Moses'  seat"  only,  but  of  those  also 
who  held  "the  key  of  David"  and  had  "made  the  house  of 
God  a  den  of  thieves."  He  and  they  both  had  faith  in  God  to 
give  his  little  flock  the  victory,  or  they  would  not  have  made 
the  attempt  together.  But  from  this  point  their  hope  and 
his  diverged.  He  foresaw  martyrdom,  vindicated  not  by 
his  own  Coming  again,  but  by  the  Coming  of  the  Danielic 
Son  of  man.  And  this  Coming  was  to  be  not  far  off  in  the 
hopelessly  distant  future,  but  while  the  evil  generation  still 
lived  that  had  slain  God's  messengers.  They  dreamed  of 
immediate  success,  and  when  disaster  came  they  first  de- 
spaired, then  identified  Jesus  himself  with  the  coming  Son 
of  man.  With  this  difference  in  point  of  view  the  catas- 
trophe in  its  first  effect  could  not  but  seem  to  the  disciples  a 


110  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

divine  repudiation  of  Jesus'  whole  program.  They  themselves 
"were  stumbled  in  him"  (14:27).  But  a  complete  revul- 
sion of  feeling  was  inevitable  from  the  moment  the  im- 
mediate shock  of  the  tragedy  allowed  their  minds  to  revert 
to  his  actual  words.  They  would  now  tend  to  swing  to  the 
opposite  extreme.  They  had  been  wrong;  not  he.  Thus 
he  had  forewarned  them  that  his  life  would  be  the  price  of 
his  temerity.  Peter,  whose  " stumbling"  had  been  most 
conspicuous,  was  the  first  to  "be  converted"  and  after  that 
to  "strengthen  his  brethren."  He  beheld  the  risen  Jesus  in 
the  apocalyptic  glory  (I  Cor.  15:5).  Now,  if  not  before, 
Peter  believed  in  him  and  proclaimed  him  as  "the  Christ." 
The  term  had  already  been  purged  of  all  taint  of  Zealotry 
by  the  tragedy,  but  it  had  not  yet  transcended  Pharisaism. 
Jesus  himself  should  come  again  as  "the  Lord  from  heaven." 
Nay,  he  was  no  other  than  himself  the  Son  of  man  for  whose 
coming  he  had  bidden  them  look  as  the  divine  vindication 
of  his  martyrdom. 

Even  if  Jesus  himself  regarded  his  calling  as  in  some  re- 
mote sense  "messianic,"  historical  criticism  may  reasonably 
question  whether  the  direct  claim  of  his  Messiahship  would 
ever  have  been  put  forth  by  his  disciples  had  it  not  first 
appeared  as  a  malignant  imputation  of  his  mortal 
enemies,  in  the  charge  by  which  they  secured  his  crucifixion 
from  a  complaisantly  cruel  governor.  Jesus'  own  course  of 
action  had  given  to  such  a  charge  just  enough  verisimilitude 
to  accomplish  its  malignant  purpose. — And  having  accom- 
plished it,  like  many  similar  false  representations  it  went 
much  further  than  its  originators  had  foreseen,  and  became 
the  very  watch-word  of  the  Galileans  they  supposed  them- 
selves to  be  now  permanently  suppressing.  It  may  well 
be  questioned,  as  we  have  seen,  whether  up  to  the  crucifixion 
itself  the  prophet  of  Nazareth  had  been  seriously  regarded 
as  "the  Christ"  by  even  the  most  ardent  disciple  (see  how- 
ever on  14:  3-9).  But  from  the  time  that  he  had  been  put 
to  death  as  such,  it  was  in  harmony  with  all  contemporary 
habits  of  reasoning  for  his  following  to  declare  that  he  was 
in  very  truth  the  Christ  of  God.  His  enemies  failed  to 
allow  for  this  alternative.  In  God's  providence  their  "lift- 
ing him  up"  became  the  means  of  "drawing  all  men  unto 
him";  for  certain  it  is  that  no  amount  of  proclamation  of 
the  Galilean  leader  as  "the  Christ"  by  Peter,  or  by  Jesus 
himself,  or  by  all  Israel,  would  ever  have  signified  anything 
without  the  cross.  Only  by  what  that  signifies  does  the 
word  "Christ"  leave  its  lowly  place  in  the  vocabulary  of 


INTRODUCTION  111 


obsolete  superstitions  of  an  obscure  Semitic  people,  and 
become  the  designation  of  the  great  Elder  Brother  of  hu- 
manity. The  Danielic  title  Son  of  man  must  undergo  the 
same  transfiguration  before  it  fitly  describes  the  Son,  who 
by  his  dauntless  championship  of  the  "lost  sons"  has  in- 
deed "  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  all  believers." 
For  the  event  of  real  significance  to  the  world  neither  the 
word  of  Peter  nor  the  word  of  Pilate  could  furnish  more 
than  a  mere  occasion.  God,  and  only  God,  "hath  made 
him  whom  the  Jews  crucified  both  Lord  and  Christ." 


PART  IE 
DIVISION  IV.    8:27—10:52 

THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 
STRUCTURE 

As  already  noted,  the  indoctrination  of  the  Twelve  in 
the  principle  of  the  Cross  forms  the  dominant  note  of  this 
Division.  Each  of  its  three  subdivisions  is  marked  by  a 
solemn  reiteration  of  the  Prediction  of  Martyrdom.1  It 
is  in  fact  characteristic  of  our  Pauline  evangelist  that  he 
should  reserve  for  this  part  of  his  story  all  account  of  Jesus' 
distinctive  gospel.  Matthew  and  Luke  begin  their  account 
of  the  Galilean  ministry  with  an  exposition  of  the  easy  yoke 
which  Jesus  substituted  for  Mosaism,  the  more  spiritual 
law  of  "sons."  Mark,  as  we  have  seen,  passes  by  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  substituting  the  Preaching  in  Par- 
ables. These  convey  indeed  "the  mystery  of  the  kingdom 
of  God"  on  its  eschatological  side.  They  convey  in  figur- 
ative form  the  message  intrusted  to  the  disciples,  "The 
Kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  But  there  is  not  even 
an  attempt  to  present  Jesus'  own  distinctive  teaching. 
That  is  reserved  for  the  present  Division  on  the  Way  of  the 
Cross.  Not  until  the  revelation  of  this  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, the  doctrine  of  the  Cross,  are  we  made  acquainted 
with  the  distinctive  note  of  the  evangelist's  faith.  Now 
he  begins  the  real  theme  of  gospel  teaching  by  declaring 
what  one  must  do  to  inherit  eternal  life. 

The  two  healings  of  the  Division  seem  at  first  an  inter- 
ruption of  its  logical  order,  especially  when  in  such  a  case 
as  that  of  the  Epileptic,2  we  ask,  How  does  the  historical 
situation  admit  of  the  scenes  of  vers.  14,  15?  So  excellent 
a  critic  as  J.  Weiss3  can  even  argue  from  the  seeming  lack 
of  relation  between  this  incident  and  its  context  that  it 
must  have  occurred  at  just  this  juncture  in  real  experience, 
since  we  have  no  other  way  of  explaining  its  insertion  here. 
On  the  contrary,  the  analogy  of  the  symbolic  miracles  of 
the  Unstopping  of  Deaf  Ears  and  Opening  of  Blind  Eyes 

i  8:  27-33;  9:  30-32;  10:  32-34.  29: 14-29. 

3  Das  alteste  Evangelium,  p.  228. 

112 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  113 

to  enclose  Subdivision  c  of  the  preceding  Division  should 
teach  us  what  to  expect  here.  R  has  demonstrably  changed 
the  original  phraseology  in  9:  17  and  25  to  transform  this 
incident  from  the  Healing  of  an  Epileptic  into  the  Casting 
out  of  a  Dumb  and  Deaf  Devil.  The  result  is  a  symbolic 
healing  like  that  of  the  Unstopping  of  Deaf  Ears1  to  close 
the  first  Subdivision2  and  another,  the  counterpart  of  the 
Opening  of  Blind  Eyes3  to  close  the  whole  Division.4  Ques- 
tions of  compatibility  with  the  historical  situation  we  have 
no  right  to  ask.  They  are  simply  non-existent  for  our 
evangelist.  He  places  his  material  where  he  finds  it  effec- 
tive for  religious  purposes.  Apply  the  key  of  current 
symbolism5  and  the  two  healings  will  be  found  to  stand 
exactly  where  they  should  be  expected.  In  particular  the 
Confession  of  Peter,  Transfiguration,  and  Healing  of  the 
Epileptic6  will  be  found  a  thoroughly  homogeneous  group 
(from  R's  point  of  view),  constituting  Subdivision  a  of  this 
Division. 

The  geographical  data  will  be  found  in  harmony  with  this 
arrangement.  With  the  second  Prediction  of  the  Cross7 
the  journey  from  the  scenes  of  Subdivision  a  on  the  northern 
frontier  toward  Jerusalem  is  begun.  It  continues  in  Sub- 
division b  in  two  stages  which  also  mark  a  division  of  sub- 
ject, so  that  the  material  of  Subdivision  b  falls  into  two 
groups.  "Capernaum"  is  made  the  scene  for  a  first  group 
of  sayings  and  incidents.8  "Judaea  beyond  Jordan"  for  a 
second,9  of  somewhat  different  character.  With  the  third 
Prediction  of  the  Cross,  beginning  Subdivision  c,  Jerusalem 
itself  is  set  as  the  immediate  objective,10  while  the  mention 
of  "Jericho"11  brings  into  needed  relief  the  symbolic  healing 
which  serves  as  a  kind  of  epilogue  to  the  whole  Division, 
leading  over  to  that  which  is  to  follow  on  the  Appeal  to 
Jerusalem. 


1  7:  31-37.  2  9:  14-29.  *  8:  22-26.  *  10:  46-52. 

8  See  note  on  9:  14-29  and  cf .  Mt.  12:  45.  •  8:  27—9:  29.  7  9:  30-32. 

8  (i.)  9:  33-50.  »  (ii.)  10:  1-31.  I0  10:  32.  "  10:  46. 


114  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


THE  REVELATION  OF  THE  MYSTERY  OF  THE  CROSS 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  a.  8 :  27 — 9 :  29.  On  the  extreme  northern 
frontier  Jesus  revealed  to  his  disciples  the  true  nature  of  his 
mission  as  the  Christ,  how  that  he  must  suffer  and  be  rejected 
and  afterward  rise  again.  But  they  were  greatly  stumbled. 
He,  however,  rebuked  their  fleshly  doctrine  of  the  Christ,  and 
taught  them  how  he  must  come  again  in  glory  as  the  heavenly 
Judge,  and  thus  accomplish  the  redemption. 

Vers.  27-33.  As  they  were  traversing  Philip's  kingdom 
and  approached  the  villages  at  the  foot  of  Hermon,  Jesus 
called  upon  his  disciples  to  report  what  the  people  said  as  to 
his  mission.  And  when  they  had  told  him  the  rumors  already 
reported  he  asked  them  of  their  own  faith;  which  when  Peter 
had  acknowledged,  he  bade  them  keep  secret  from  all,  and  be- 
gan to  make  known  to  them  what  things  as  the  Christ  he  must 
suffer,  and  he  no  longer  used  a  parable,  but  uttered  the  matter 
openly.  But  Peter  was  greatly  stumbled,  and  undertook  to 
rebuke  him.  Jesus,  however,  denounced  him  to  his  face,  as 
making  himself  a  minister  of  Satan,  and  declared  Peter's 
view  of  the  Christ  to  be  according  to  men,  and  not  that  of  God. 

8:  34 — 9: 1.  Then  he  began  to  teach  his  disciples  and  all 
the  people  the  teaching  of  the  cross,  how  that  to  save  one's  life 
unto  the  kingdom  of  God  one  must  lose  it  in  this  world,  and 
how  it  is  profitable  to  lose  the  whole  world  if  thereby  one  may 
enter  into  the  life  of  the  world  to  come.  For  he  assured  them 
also  that  those  who  confessed  him  he  would  also  confess  before 
God  in  the  great  day  of  judgment,  and  those  who  denied  him 
he  would  also  deny  before  God.  He  also  made  them  the  wit- 
nesses of  his  messiahship,  declaring  that  some  of  them  should 
not  taste  of  death  till  they  should  have  seen  the  coming  of  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

9:  2-10.  Six  days  thereafter  Jesus  granted  to  Peter  and 
James  and  John  a  visible  manifestation  of  his  true  nature 
and  destiny;  for,  leading  them  up  into  a  high  mountain  apart, 
he  was  metamorphosed  in  their  sight,  their  eyes  being  opened 
to  the  spiritual  reality.  They  saw  him  therefore  standing  on 
the  mount  in  shining  garments,  whiter  than  any  earthly 
material.  And  there  stood  with  him  the  two  men  which  were 
taken  up  into  heaven,  Moses  and  Elijah,  who  were  talking 
with  him.  Then  Peter  proposed  to  abide  there  as  they  were, 
and  for  the  men  that  they  had  seen  in  glory,  Moses  and  Elijah 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  115 

and  Jesus,  he  would  have  made  three  booths;  for  because  of  his 
fear  he  knew  not  what  to  say.  But  there  came  an  overshadow- 
ing cloud,  and  out  of  the  midst  of  the  cloud  the  Voice  of  God, 
saying,  This  is  my  Son,  the  Beloved;  hearken  ye  unto  him. 
And  suddenly  they  were  no  longer  in  the  Spirit,  but  saw  all 
things  as  before.  But  Jesus,  as  they  were  coming  down  from 
the  mount,  forbade  them  to  tell  any  man  of  the  revelation  they 
had  received,  until  after  he  should  be  risen  from  the  dead. 
For  this  reason  their  experience  was  not  at  first  made  known, 
but  they  only  questioned  with  one  another  as  to  what  the  nature 
of  the  resurrection  might  be. 

Vers.  11-13.  The  disciples  also  asked  Jesus  how  to  meet 
the  objection  of  the  scribes  that  before  the  coming  of  Christ 
must  be  the  coming  of  Elijah.  He  told  them,  therefore,  that 
so  it  had  indeed  been;  for  in  John  the  Baptist,  who  had  preached 
the  great  repentance,  the  promise  had  been  fulfilled  of  the  com- 
ing of  Elijah  as  the  restorer  of  all  things.  Moreover  it  was 
also  prophesied  of  Elijah  that  when  he  returned  he  should  be 
slain  by  the  tyrant,  as  had  happened  to  John,  and  the  Christ 
must  also  suffer  in  like  manner. 

Vers.  14-29.  And  when  they  were  come  to  the  rest  of  the 
disciples  they  found  a  multitude  assembled,  and  scribes  dis- 
puting with  Jesus'  disciples.  For  one  of  the  multitude  had 
brought  his  son,  possessed  by  a  dumb  devil,  that  the  disciples 
should  cast  it  out,  and  they  could  not.  Jesus,  therefore,  when 
he  had  rebuked  their  unbelief,  cast  out  the  devil  and  restored 
the  boy.  And  when  his  disciples  asked  him  concerning  their 
failure  he  showed  them  how  prayer  alone  can  avail  to  save 
those  who  are  holden  with  this  spirit  of  dumbness. 


SUBDIVISION   A.    8: 27— 9t  29.— CRITICISM 

Subdivision  a  is  exclusively  concerned  with  the  revelation  of  the 
mystery  of  the  passion.  Its  connection  with  material  which  we  have 
already  traced  to  the  Petrine  tradition  is  put  beyond  all  doubt  by  a 
resumption  at  its  beginning1  of  the  theme  already  broached  under 
Herod's  Comment,2  Who  is  Jesus,  and  what  is  his  mission  and  destiny? 
This  question  now  receives  its  full  answer,3  including  an  explanation 
of  the  relation  of  Jesus'  mission  and  destiny  to  that  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist. *  As  we  have  seen,5  the  original  bearing  of  the  paragraph  has 
been  somewhat  modified,  making  Peter  appear  more  in  the  role  of  an 
objector  to  the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  and  by  introducing  a  small 
group  of  Q  sayings6  commending  to  Christians  generally  the  example 
of  Jesus'  spirit  of  self-renunciation.    This,  however,  scarcely  affects 

*8:27.  *  6:  14-16.  »  8:  27-9:1.  «  9:  11-13.  «  Above,  p.  105. 

•  8:  34-38. 


116  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

the  general  bearing  of  the  narrative,  whose  object  is  to  show  that  a 
Christ  after  "the  things  which  be  of  God,"  i.e.,  crucified  by  the  Jews 
but  returning  in  glory,  is  the  true  Christ.  To  this  doctrine  one  objec- 
tion immediately  presents  itself,  the  expectation,  here  attributed  to 
"the  scribes,"  of  the  previous  coming  of  "the  witness  (or  witnesses) 
of  Messiah."  We  have  seen  that  in  the  Prologue1  R  already  antici- 
pates this  objection  by  presenting  John  the  Baptist  as  both  fore- 
runner and  "anointer"  of  the  Christ.  Another  element  from  the  same 
editorial  hand,  attached  after  Herod's  Comment,2  still  further  devel- 
ops this  theme,  making  clear  the  parallel  between  John  and  Elias, 
not  only  as  respects  his  prophet  career,  but  also  as  respects  the  mar- 
tyrdom at  the  tyrant's  hands  which  the  legend  attributed  to  Elias  re- 
divivus  as  the  witness  of  Messiah.  This  theme  is  now  fully  developed.3 
The  witnesses  who  shall  not  "taste  of  death"  until  the  Coming  are  to 
be  found  among  Jesus'  own  following,  some  of  whom  will  survive  to 
see  it.  Elias,  however,  has  already  come  and  delivered  his  "witness" 
(martyria)  in  the  person  of  John.4 

Into  the  midst  of  this  solution  of  the  question  of  the  "witnesses" 
R  has  interjected  another,  of  unknown  derivation.5  This  Transfigura- 
tion Story,  as  we  are  accustomed  to  call  it,  presents  under  the  form  of 
apocalypse  or  "vision"6  not  only  a  different  answer  to  the  objection 
about  the  witnesses  of  Messiah,  who  are  now  the  two  "that  had  not 
tasted  death  from  their  birth,"7  but  a  complete  duplicate  of  the  Revela- 
tion of  the  Messiahship  to  Peter.  In  this  version  Peter  receives  in  an 
audible  Voice  from  heaven  a  declaration  of  the  true  dignity  of  Jesus, 
and  in  a  visible  "metamorphosis"  an  explanation  of  the  real  nature 
of  the  person  and  destiny  of  the  Christ  and  of  the  "body  of  glory." 

The  subdivision  closes  with  a  healing8  whose  fundamental  traits 
are  closely  akin  to  the  "Faith  wonders"  of  4:  35 — 5:  43,  and  which 
is  historically  incompatible  with  the  present  environment.  The  under- 
lying story  relates  the  healing  of  an  epileptic  and  makes  prominent 
the  faith  motive10  besides  implying  circumstances11  which  are  only 
supposable  in  the  Galilean  environment  of  4:  35 — 5:  43.  In  every 
respect  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  form  the  conclusion  of  that  series 
in  place  of  the  Rejection  in  Nazareth,12  especially  if  we  might  follow 
Matthew  and  the  hint  of  Luke  in  appending  at  the  close  the  Q  saying 
on  mountain-moving  faith  (Mt.  17:  20,  21  =Lk.  17:  5,  6).  The  key  to 
the  problem  will  be  found  in  the  traces  of  editorial  adaptation,  which 
indicate  that  the  motive  for  the  present  location  lies  in  R's  symbolic 
application.  The  victim  "from  a  child"  of  the  "dumb  and  deaf 
demon"  is  Israel.  The  disciples'  efforts  to  cast  it  out  are  vain,  because 
against  this  "spirit  of  stupor,"  as  Paul  calls  it,13  only  prayer  can  avail. 
The  Coming  of  Jesus  relieves  the  otherwise  hopeless  situation.14  Such 
is  in  fact  to  be  the  outcome,  according  to  Rom.  11:  26,  of  what  is  now 
to  the  Jews  the  stumbling-block  of  the  cross. 

The  motive  for  this  symbolic  application  seems  to  be  taken  by  R 
from  Q.1^  The  evidence  of  the  process  is  apparent  not  merely  in  the 
location  in  this  Division  and  the  elaboration  of  symptoms,  but  more 
especially  in  the  substitution18  of  the  characteristic  "dumb  and  deaf 
spirit"  already  elaborated  from  Q17  as  the  predicted  and  typical  obses- 
sion of  Israel,  in  place  of  an  original  simple  epilepsy.18 


il:2-ll.       2  6:17-29.       3  9:1,11-13.       4  9:  11-13.       5  9:2-10.        6  Mt.  17: 9. 
7  I.e.,  Moses  and  Elias;  as  appears  from  II  Esdr.  6:  28  and  Rev.  11:  5,  6. 
s  9:  14-29.       s  Ver.  18.  1°  Vers.  19,  23,  24.  "  Vers.  14,  15.  »2  6:  1-6. 

13  Rom.  11:  8.  "  9:  14-29.  "Mt.  12:  43-15=Lk.  11:  24-26. 

1B  Vers.  17  and  25.       "  7:  31-37;  8:  17,  18.       ™See  notes  on  vers.  17,  19,  22,  25. 


8:27-30  THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  117 


27  A  ND  Jesus  went  forth,  and  his  disciples, 
XX    into  the  villages  of  Csesarea  Philippi: 

and  in  the  way  he  asked  his  disciples, 
saying  unto  them,  Who  do  men  say  that 

28  I  am?  And  they  told  him,  saying,  John 
the  Baptist:  and  others,  Elijah;  but  others, 

29  One  of  the  prophets.  And  he  asked  them, 
But  who  say  ye  that  I  am?  Peter  answer- 
eth   and   saith   unto   him,   Thou   art   the 

30  Christ.  And  he  charged  them 


Vers.37-30=Mt. 

16:13-20=Lk. 

9 :  18-31 :  cf . 

Jn.  6:  66-69 

(P) 


R(Q) 


8:  27—9:  1,  11-13.  The  Revelation  of  the  Mystery  of  the  Cross. 
As  in  so  many  cases  elsewhere  (e.g.,  3:  20,  21;  31-35;  5:  21-24,  35-43; 
14:  1,  2,  10,  11,  53,  66-72)  R  interjects  midway  in  the  narrative,  an- 
other, which  interrupts  the  connection.  The  answer  to  the  objection 
about  Elias'  coming'  tirst  (i.e.,  before  the  manifestation  of  the  Son  of 
man)  in  9:  11-13  is  not  consecutive,  but  alternative  to  9:  2-10,  which 
affords  a  wholl  different  answer.  (See  Criticism,  p.  116).  _  R  also 
introduces  say  ugs  to  "the  multitude"  (in  Caesarea  Philippi!)  in  8:  34- 
38,  manifest1^  I  iorrowings  from  Q,  attached  after  the  manner  of  4: 21-25, 
regardless  of  the  situation. 

Ver.  2".     On  the  geography  see  above,  p.  113. 

Ver.  28.     On  the  reports  concerning  Jesus  see  on  6:  14-16. 

Ver.  29.     The  first  appearance  of  Peter  in  a  separate  role,  and  first 

.ranee  of  the  title  "Christ"  in  the  course  of  the  narrative.     The 

ias  more  significance  than  R  allows  to  appear.     Christ.     A  Greek 

•ring  of  the  Aramaic   designation  Messiah,  i.e.,  the  "Anointed" 

king  (Jn.  1:  41).     To  R  this  is  a  mere  synonym  for  the  other  titles 

already  employed  (cf.  1:1,  34  [marg.];  9:41),   because  "the  Christ" 

means  to  him  what  it  had  come  to  mean,  and  still  means,  in  the  Church. 

Hence  no  special  heed  is  given  to  Peter's  avowal;  but  cf.  Matthew.    In 

the  older  form  of  the  tradition  it  could  only  signify  the  kingship  over 

Israel;  cf.  Jn.  1:49.     In  Jn.  6:  15  this  political  movement  emanates 

not  from  Peter  but  from  the  multitude. 

Ver.  30.  In  Mark  simply  the  usual  charge  of  secrecy,  as  in  1 :  34, 
43,  44;  3:  12,  etc.;  but  cf.  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  older  tradition  at- 
tached more  significance  to  this  question  and  answer;  else  it  would  not 
be  reported.  Cf.  the  emphatic  declaration  of  the  Voice  from  heaven 
in  the  Transfiguration  parallel. 

Vers.  31-33.  For  R  the  true  heart  of  the  paragraph  is  the  Predic- 
tion of  the  Passion,  which  gives  opportunity  for  contrasting  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Messiahship  (Pauline)  with  the  Jewish.  The  latter, 
which  vioLntly  rejects  the  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  is  "according 
to  men";  the  former  "according  to  God"  (ver.  33).  In  Q  this  contrast 
is  drawn  in  the  Temptation  Story  (Mt.  4:8-ll=Lk.  4:5-8),  from 
which  accordingly  R  now  borrows  Jesus'  reply  to  the  Tempter,  trans- 
forming thus  the  Confession  of  Peter  into  a  Rebuke  of  Peter.  No 
special  significance  any  longer  attaches  to  the  avowal,  "Thou  art  the 
Christ";  but  extraordinary  emphasis  is  laid  on  Peter's  reluctance  to 
admit  the  doctrine  of  the  Cross,  even  to  the  point  of  representing  him 
in  this  respect  as  a  "minister  of  Satan"  (II  Cor.  11:  13,  14).  It  can 
hardly  be  supposed,  however,  that  R  had  no  basis  in  Petrine  tradition 
for  so  remarkable  a  representation.  On  the  contrary  the  divergence 
of  Peter's  ideal  from  that  of  Jesus  from  this  time  onward  to  that  of  his 


118  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        8:31-33 


31  that  they  should  tell  no  man  of  him.  And 
he  began  to  teach  them,  that  the  Son  of 
man  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  re- 
jected by  the  elders,  and  the  chief  priests, 
and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  after 

32  three  days  rise  again.  And  he  spake  the 
saying  openly.     And  Peter  took  him,  and 

33  began  to  rebuke  him.  But  he  turning 
about,  and  seeing  his  disciples,  rebuked 
Peter,  and  saith,  Get  thee  behind  me,  Sa- 
tan: for  thou  mindest  not  the  things  of 


Vers.31-33=Mt. 
16:31-23=Lk. 
9:22 


(Mt.  4:  8-ll=Lk. 
4:5-8) 


"turning  again"  is  a  fundamental  and  vital  element  of  the  story. 
See  above,  p.  109.  Only  the  polemic  turn  in  the  interest  of  Paulinism 
in  ver.  33  seems  to  come  from  the  redactioD  which  rests  upon  Q. 

Ver.  31.  The  exact  prediction  of  the  evenfc  f  the  Passion  belongs 
to  R  (cf.  9:  30-32  and  10:  32-34)  in  accordance  \  ith  his  well  known 
conception  of  the  supernatural.  Needless  to  say  it  would  make  the 
conduct  of  the  disciples  after  the  first  features  of  the  prediction  had 
found  fulfillment  incredibly  base  and  cowardly.  Per  contra,  entire  re- 
jection of  the  statement  is  unreasonable.  A  general  warning  of  the 
new  dangers  to  be  faced,  at  Jerusalem  and  direction  to  a  sacrifice  of 
life  itself  in  the  confident  assurance  of  God's  intervention  within, their 
own  generation  is  witnessed  by  a  host  of  Q  sayings,  many  of  which 
(e.g.,  Mt.  10:  26-33  =  Lk.  12:  2-9)  are  unquestionably  from  thi^  period. 
The  present  passage  (cf.  9:  30-32;  10:  32-34)  simply  represents  R's 
concrete  and  externalized  summary  of  these  thoroughly  historical 
warnings  of  martyrdom.  The  Son  of  man.  Cf.  ver.  38,  Q  (Mt.  10:  32, 
33  =  Lk.  12:  8,  9).  The  title  is  used  by  R  where  either  the  humiliation 
or  the  exaltation  of  Christ  are  to  be  made  specially  prominent.  See 
note  on  2:  10,  above.  After  three  days.  Later  evangelists  and  in- 
terpreters find  great  difficulty  with  this  form.  We  should  expect  the 
form  "on  the  third  day,"  which  is  that  of  Paul  (I  Cor.  15:  3)  explicitly 
based  on  "the  scriptures"  (i.e.,  Hos.  6:2).  This  form  is  in  fact  sub- 
stituted by  Matthew  and  Luke  in  every  case  for  Mark's  except  in  Mt. 
27:  63.  The  Syriac  Didaskalia1  (ca.  200  a.d.)  even  goes  so  far  in  the 
endeavor  to  harmonize,  as  to  count  the  darkness  from  the  sixth  to  the 
ninth  hour  at  the  crucifixion  and  the  ensuing  light  as  an  extra  night 
and  day.  But  early  tradition  was  not  uniform  as  to  the  period  of 
Jesus'  stay  in  the  underworld.  Jn.  2:  19  counts  "three  days";  Mt. 
12:  40  "three  days  and  three  nights."  On  this  point  see  note  on 
16:  1-8. 

Ver.  32.  Openly.  No  longer  in  parables  and  dark  sayings  as  in 
8: 15.  The  Greek  word  is  common  in  Acts,  but  occurs  nowhere  else 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

Ver.  33.  A  substitute  by  R  for  Q  (Mt.  4 :  8-1 1  =  Lk.  4 :  5-8).  Peter 
becomes  the  mouthpiece  for  Jewish  opposition  to  the  "offence  of  the 
cross."     Get  behind.     A  Semitic  expression  for  "retire,"  "begone." 

Vers.  34-38.  A  group  of  agglutinated  Q  sayings  inserted  by  R 
apropos  of  the  Prediction  of  the  Cross,  ver.  31.  Cf.  the  group  4:  21-25 
and  the  resumption  in  4:  26  and  9:1. 


i  C.  xxi.     Texte  u.   Unters.  N.  F.  X,  2,  pp.  106f. 


8: 34-38 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


119 


34  God,  but  the  things  of  men.  And 
he  called  unto  him  the  multitude  with 
his  disciples,  and  said  unto  them,  If  any 
man  would  come  after  me,  let  him  deny 
himself,  and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow 

35  me.  For  whosoever  would  save  his 
xlife  shall  lose  it ;  and  whosoever  shall  lose 
his    xlife  for  my  sake    and    the    gospel's 

36  shall  save  it.  For  what  doth  it 
profit  a  man,  to  gain  the  whole  world,  and 

37  forfeit  his  Mife?  For  what  should  a 
man  give  in  exchange  for  his  ^ife? 

38  For  whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me  and 
of  my  words  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful 
generation,  the  Son  of  man  also  shall  be 

1  Or,  soul. 


Vers.34-38=Mt. 

16:34-27= 

Lk.  9:23-26 

R(Q) 

(Mt.  10:  37,  38= 
Lk.  14:  25-27.) 


(Q) 
Mt.  10:39= 
17:33 


Lk. 


R(X) 


Ps.  49:  8 


(Q) 

(Mt.  10:  32,  33= 

Lk.  12:  8,9) 


Ver.  34  =  Q  (Mt.  10:  38  =  Lk.  14:  27).  And  he  called  unto  him  the 
multitude  with  his  disciples.  Cf.  7:  14  and  note  ibid.  The  sayings 
which  follow  are  meant  to  warn  not  the  disciples  only  but  all  Christians 
to  be  steadfast  to  endure  persecution.  Hence  the  introductory  formula. 
Most  of  them  appear  twice  in  the  parallels,  once  derived  from  Mark, 
once  in  the  Q  setting.  The  incongruity  with  the  situation  falls  outside 
of  R's  consideration.  Take  up  his  cross.  Criminals  were  compelled 
to  bear  the  transverse  beam  to  the  place  of  execution.  The  form  of 
the  saying  has  been  affected  by  the  event. 

Ver.  35.  Comparison  of  the  six  forms  of  statement  (Mk.  8:  35  =  Mt. 
16:  25  =  Lk.  9:  24;  Q,  Mt.  10:  39  =  Lk.  17:  33  =  Jn.  12:  25)  will  give  the 
sense  with  greater  precision.  The  gospel's  sake.  See  note  on  1:1. 
Practically  equivalent  to  "  Christianity." 

Ver.  36.  The  "life"  forfeited  through  worldly  conformity  is  of 
course  that  to  which  ver.  38  looks  forward  in  the  days  of  the  Son  of 
man.  Martyrdom  only  ensures,  it.  What  really  puts  it  in  jeopardy 
is  the  cowardly  attempt  to  save  it  (cf.  Q,  Mt.  10:  28==Lk.  12:  4,  5).  It 
is  perhaps  a  saying  of  this  nature  to  which  Paul  refers  in  I  Thess.  4:  15. 
The  present  verse  is  perhaps  no  more  than  R's  epexegetical  supplement 
to  ver.  35.     It  does  not  appear  in  Q. 

Ver.  38.  An  encouragement  to  fearless  martyrdom  slightly  adapted 
from  Q  (Mt.  10:  32,  33  =  Lk.  12:  8,  9).  In  this  form  the  saying  is  cer- 
tainly a  product  of  the  age  of  persecution  "for  the  Name"  (Acts  5:  41; 
I  Pt.  4:  12-19).  In  II  Tim.  2:  12  it  forms  part  of  a  "faithful  saying" 
in  strophic  form,  not  an  utterance  of  Jesus,  but  of  the  Church.  But 
we  may  still  believe  that  in  the  new  phase  of  activity  inaugurated  by 
the  journey  to  Jerusalem  Jesus  sounded  the  note  of  personal  loyalty 
to  himself  in  a  manner  thus  far  unknown.  In  Q  the  contrast  is  between 
earthly  and  heavenly  praise:    Jesus  (Luke,  "the  Son  of  man")  will 

Elead  for  those  who  are  loyal  to  him  in  the  presence  of  his  Father  in 
eaven  (Luke,  "of  the  angels  of  God").  Mark  contrasts  the  present 
age  with  the  Coming,  "When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory 
of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels."  R  externalizes,  following  QLK. 
With  Qmt  cf.  Mt.  6:  4,  6,  18.  In  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation. 
A  phrase  borrowed  by  R  from  Q  (Mt.  12:  39  =  Lk.  11:  29).     The  genera- 


120  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  9:  I 


ashamed  of  him,  when  he  cometh  in  the 

glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels. 

9  And  he  said  unto  them,  Verily  I 

say  unto  you,  There  be  some  here  of  them 


9:l=Mt.  16:28 
=Lk.  9:27 

(P) 


tion  there  is  "adulterous"  in  the  Old  Testament  sense,  because  of  its 
craving  for  the  aid  of  angelic  or  demonic  beings.  In  Mark  the  ap- 
propriateness disappears.  It  is  a  general  denunciatory  epithet  of  the 
Jews  "who  both  killed  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  prophets  and  drove  out 
us,  and  please  not  God,  and  are  contrary  to  all  men." 

9:  1  (P).  A  saying  of  momentous  influence  in  early  Christian  tradi- 
tion. On  the  connection  with  the  legend  of  the  "Witnesses  of  Messiah," 
see  above,  p.  116.  The  extremely  rare  expression  "taste  of  death"  indi- 
cates the  connection  with  II  Esdr.  6:  28.  Matthew  is  less  cautious 
than  Mark  in  his  form  of  statement,  specifically  promising  the  advent 
of  the  Son  of  man  (Mark,  only  the  advent  of  "the  kingdom  with  power") 
within  the  lifetime  of  the  disciples  (see  Introduction,  p.  108,  and  note 
on  13:  24).  It  is  fallacious  to  regard  the  Markan  form  as  necessarily 
indicative  of  later  date.  His  more  guarded  utterance  may  be  due  only 
to  greater  freedom  from  the  Jewish  mania  for  calculation  of  apocalyptic 
"times  and  seasons."  A  parallel  utterance  (or  variant?)  appears  in 
13:30  (=Mt.  24:34  =  Lk.  21:32),  fixing  the  Coming  within  the  life 
period  of  Jesus'  own  generation.  The  authenticity  of  the  teaching  in 
general  substance  is  attested  in  I  Thess.  4:  17;  Phil.  3:  21,  and  the 
universal  and  ardent  conviction  of  the  early  Church.  As  time  pro- 
gresses we  find  various  expedients  resorted  to  against  the  demand 
"Where  is  the  promise  of  his  Coming."  This  demand  naturally  arose 
when  "the  fathers  fell  on  sleep,"  and  yet  "all  things  continued  as  they 
were  since  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Apologists  extended  the 
lifetime  of  the  "witnesses"  down  to  "the  age  of  Trajan,"  in  whose 
reign  the  death  of  four  of  the  apostolic  group  was  fixed.1  Then  the 
death  of  individuals  of  the  group  (John),  or  of  some  other  of  the  genera- 
tion (legend  of  the  Wandering  Jew)  was  alleged  to  have  been  unreal2; 
or  again  the  testimony  was  made  persistent  instead  of  the  witness  him- 
self (Jn.  21:  21-24).  So  with  13:  30.  The  period  of  Jesus'  "genera- 
tion" was  similarly  first  extended  to  the  Mosaic  limit  of  120  years,3 
then  the  generation  was  identified  with  the  "evil  and  adulterous  gen- 
eration" of  the  Jews.  Such  expedients  merely  display  the  embarrass- 
ment of  the  apologist.  We  cannot  do  honest  justice  to  the  unbroken 
consensus  of  primitive  testimony  without  acknowledging  that  Jesus 
pointed  his  disciples  to  the  expected  intervention  of  God,  which  should 
be  the  vindication  of  his  gospel,  before  the  generation  which  heard 
and  rejected  it  should  have  passed  away.  The  sublime  faith  in  God 
which  ventured  this  declaration  (13:  30,  31)  was  indeed  justified  by 
the  event.  The  kingdom  of  God  did  come  with  power.  The  city 
which  "knew  not  the  time  of  her  visitation,  and  rejected  the  things 
which  belonged  to  her  peace  "  did  undergo  a  frightful  "judgment." 
But  this  kind  of  "fulfillment  of  prophecy"  is  utterly  worthless  as  proof 

1  Three  of  these  were  named  John,  indicating  the  actual  survival  of  some  indi- 
vidual of  this  name  (John  Mark,  Pasch.  Chron.;  John  the  Elder — f  117  a.d. — Epi- 
phanius;  John  the  Apostle,  Irenaeus)  to  this  period.  The  fourth  is  Simeon,  son  of 
Clopas,  one  of  the  Lord's  kindred  alleged  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  under  Trajan 
"at  the  age  of  120  years"! 

2  In  the  Johannine  legend  the  aged  apostle  is  supposed  to  sleep  on  under  the 
earth,  his  breath  stirring  the  dust,  or  to  be  translated  (metastasis). 

3  See  note  1. 


9:  I  THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  121 


that  stand  (by),  which  shall  in  no  wise  taste 
of  death,  till  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God 
come  with  power. 


of  mere  miraculous  prediction,  the  kind  of  apologetic  that  classifies 
Jesus  and  the  prophets  with  casters  of  horoscopes  and  crystal-gazers. 
What  it  really  justifies  is  his  undaunted  faith  in  the  God  of  Righteous- 
ness and  Truth,  whatever  had  been  the  time,  or  the  manner,  of  God's 
intervention. 

Without  laying  stress  on  details  we  may  accept  the  tradition  that 
Jesus,  in  conjunction  with  his  warning  that  a  fate  like  the  Baptist's 
overhung  him,  gave  assurance  to  the  Twelve  of  a  divinely  wrought 
deliverance,  and  that  he  also  declared  it  would  be  within  the  lifetime 
of  some  of  them;  for  there  could  indeed  be  no  such  hope  after  the  dis- 
appearance of  his  "witnesses." 

Vers.  2-10.  The  Transfiguration.  The  vision-story,  whose  moral 
is  frequently  given  in  the  form  of  the  bath  qol  or  Voice  from  heaven, 
is  the  poetic  device  most  congenial  to  the  Semitic  writer  of  the  first 
centuries  for  admitting  the  reader  behind  the  veil  of  God's  designs. 
Apocalypse,  the  most  popular  form  of  such  religious  literature,  was 
nothing  else,  whether  in  name  or  fact,  than  the  attempt  to  lift  this  veil. 
In  Acts  10:  9-16  "the  mystery  of  Christ,  which  in  other  generations 
was  not  made  known  unto  the  sons  of  men— to  wit,  that  the  Gentiles 
are  fellow-heirs  and  fellow-members  of  the  body,  and  fellow-partakers 
of  the  promise"  without  distinction,  is  "made  known  by  revelation" 
to  one  of  "the  holy  apostles  in  the  Spirit"  by  a  vision  framed  upon 
the  same  lines  as  the  Transfiguration  story.  The  actual  history  of 
Peter's  learning  to  eat  with  the  Gentiles,  and  not  to  call  unclean  what 
God  hath  cleansed,  whether  flesh  of  beast  or  heart  of  man,  we  learn 
from  Gal.  2:  11-21.  The  relation  of  the  vision-story  of  Acts  10:  1 — 
1 1 :  18  to  Paul's  unvarnished  narrative  is  the  same  as  the  relation  of  the 
Transfiguration  "vision"  (the  term  is  applied  in  Mt.  17:  9)  to  the 
prose  account  of  Peter's  Revelation  of  the  Christ  and  the  Prediction 
of  the  Cross  into  which  it  has  been  interjected  by  Mark.1  As  before, 
the  main  feature  (subordinated  by  Mark)  is  the  Manifestation  of  Jesus 
to  the  Twelve  as  the  Christ.  Jesus'  saying  to  Peter,  "Flesh  and  blood 
hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee  but  my  Father,"  now  becomes  a  literal 
experience  of  "Peter  and  them  that  were  with  him"  (Lk.  9:  32;  see  note 
on  Mk.  9:2).  The  Voice  from  heaven  proclaims  it.  The  comple- 
mentary element:  This  Messiahship,  "not  according  to  the  things 
of  men,  but  the  things  of  God  "  (8:  33),  also  receives  dramatic  form. 
The  disciples  see  Jesus  "metamorphosed"  into  the  "body  of  glory" 
which  he  had  after  the  resurrection.  He  appears  to  them  as  he  is 
known  to  Paul,  no  longer  "a  Christ  after  the  flesh"  such  as  the  Jews 
expect.  The  question  of  the  Witnesses  of  Messiah,  and  (in  Luke)  of 
his  martyrdom  in  Jerusalem,  is  also  pragmatized.    Moses  and  Elias, 

1  This  relation  of  the  Transfiguration  story  to  the  Revelation  to  Peter  was  ex- 
plained by  me  in  the  article  "Autobiography  of  Jesus,"  in  Amer.  Journ.  of  Theol., 
July,  1898,  pp.  541£f.,  and  again  in  the  same  journal  in  the  article,  "The  Trans- 
figuration Story,"  pp.  236-265,  April,  1902.  In  1903  Wellhausen  writes  (Mar- 
cusev.  p.  70)  Diese  (die  Verklarungsgeschichte)  ist  eine  Unterstreichung  und  himm- 
lische  Beglaubigung  des  Petrusbekenntnisses — was  allerdings  bisher  niemand 
erkannt  hat  (!).  In  the  article  of  April,  1902,  I  had  written  (p.  237)  "The  Trans- 
figuration story  ...  is  not  only  derived  from  a  different  source  from  8:  27 — 9:  1, 
11-13,  but  is  also  a  practical  duplicate  of  it,  as  presenting  the  same  data  under  the 
literary  form  of  vision,  which  the  Confession  of  Peter  .  .  .  presents  in  ordinary 
prose." 


122  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  9: 2 


2  And  after  six  days  Jesus 

taketh  with  him  Peter,  and  James,and  John, 
and  bringeth  them  up  into  a  high  moun- 


Vers.  2-10=Mt. 
17:l-13=Lk. 
9 : 28-36 

(Qlk) 


"the  men  which  were  taken  up,  which  did  not  taste  of  death  from 
their  birth,"  appear  with  Jesus  in  glory  and  (according  to  Luke)  "tell 
of  his  departure  which  he  should  accomplish  in  Jerusalem."  This, 
as  the  writer  of  II  Pt.  1:  16-18  clearly  sees,  is  a  guarantee  in  visible 
form  of  "the  power  and  Coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  more  than 
equivalent  to  the  verbal  assurance  of  9:  1  and  the  interpretation  of 
the  apocalyptic  doctrine  as  applying  to  the  Baptist's  coming  and 
martyrdom  in  9:  11-13.  Lastly  the  injunction  of  secrecy  (8:  30)  reap- 
pears in  more  definite  form  in  9:  9,  10,  with  an  intimation  of  its  ground 
in  the  disciples'  inability  to  apprehend  the  true  nature  of  the  Messiah- 
ship  until  "after  the  Son  of  man  had  risen  from  the  dead." 

The  intensely  Pauline  doctrine  and  phraseology  of  this  paragraph 
cannot  be  obscured  by  its  intensely  Jewish  (technically  haggadic)  lit- 
erary treatment.  Its  fundamental  object  is  to  present  Jesus  as  primar- 
ily the  pre-existent  Son  of  God,  the  Beloved,  chosen  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  (Eph.  1:  4-6),  incarnate  for  a  brief  time  that  he  may 
accomplish  the  redemption  of  humanity  through  the  cross,  his  glorifi- 
cation being  the  revelation  to  men  of  "what  it  is  to  rise  from  the  dead" 
(9:  10).  For  the  purposes  of  this  teaching  even  the  Pauline  term  for 
the  believers'  "metamorphosis"  into  the  image  of  the  Lord's  glory 
(II  Cor.  3:  18)  is  borrowed,  and  applied  (9:  2)  to  the  "transfiguration" 
of  Jesus'  body.  Nevertheless  we  cannot  attribute  the  composition  of 
this  vision-story  to  R ;  for  it  manifestly  handles  the  data  of  the  witnesses 
of  Messiah,  the  Coming  of  Elias,  and  especially  the  Revelation  to  Peter 
in  a  wholly  different  way  from  6:  14-29;  8:  27—9:  1,  11-13,  besides 
flagrantly  interrupting  that  context.  In  several  respects  the  coinci- 
dences of  Matthew  and  Luke  suggest  acquaintance  with  the  story  in 
independent  form,  while  doctrinally,  as  well  as  in  style  and  language, 
it  stands  very  intimately  related  to  the  Q  narratives  of  the  Baptism 
and  Temptation  (8:  33;  9:  2,  7).  Some  features,  such  as  the  dating 
by  days  (ver.  2),  the  "mountain"  and  the  description  of  Jesus'  appear- 
ance, lend  significance  to  the  fact  that  in  the  recently  discovered  frag- 
ment of  the  Revelation  of  Peter1  the  Transfiguration  occurs  after  the 
Resurrection,  reminding  us  that  Clement  of  Alexandria2  (ca.  210) 
reports  a  representation  that  gnosis  had  been  given  "after  the  resur- 
rection" to  James  the  Just  (sic)  and  John  and  Peter,  and  by  these  to 
the  rest.  These  traces  of  circulation  of  the  story  in  other  forms  and 
connections  increase  the  probability  that  R  has  here  the  role  of  com- 
piler and  editor  rather  than  composer. 

Ver.  2.  After  six  (Luke,  "about  eight")  days.  The  significance  of  the 
date  no  longer  appears.  Elsewhere  only  the  resurrection  appearances 
are  thus  dated.  Peter  and  James  and  John.  The  independent  por- 
tion of  Luke  (Lk.  9:  32)  has  "Peter  and  his  company";  cf.  Acts  13:  13 
and  the  "shorter  ending"  of  Mark.  On  the  possible  significance  to 
R  of  this  triad  see  note  on  3:  16.  Into  a  high  mountain.  With  the 
scene  cf.  Q  (Mt.  4:8  =  Lk.  4:5).  The  (ideal)  mount  of  Temptation 
is  identified  by  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  with  "Mount  Tabor." 
R  very  possibly  has  here  Mount  Hermon  in  mind,  whose  snowy  summit 
rises  above  Csesarea  Philippi.      But  "the  mountain"  is  originally  as 


1  Rev.  Petri,  vers.  4-13.  2  Hypotyposes  VII.  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  II,  i.  4. 


9: 3-5  THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  123 


tain  apart  by  themselves :  and  he  was  trans- 
figured before  them:  and  his  garments  be- 
came glistering,  exceeding  white1;  so  as 
no  2fuller  on  earth  can  whiten  them. 
And  there  appeared  unto  them  Elijah  with 
Moses:  and  they  were  talking  with  Jesus. 
And  Peter  answereth  and  saith  to  Jesus, 


1  0  var.  insert  like  snow.  2  |3  var.  man. 


unreal  in  one  case  as  the  other.  He  was  transfigured.  Gr.,  "meta- 
morphosed." The  conception  and  phraseology  are  Pauline;  cf. 
II  Cor.  3:  18;  Rom.  8:11.  Christ's  real  person  is  his  "body  of  glory," 
into  the  likeness  of  which  at  the  resurrection  our  body  of  humiliation 
is  to  be  miraculously  "changed"  (Phil.  3:  21).  The  story  of  Moses' 
shining  countenance  as  he  descends  from  the  mount  (Ex.  34:  29)  is 
the  basis  of  Paul's  comparison  (II  Cor.  3:  7-18),  and  this  feature  is 
present  in  both  parallels  (Mt.  17:  2  =  Lk.  9:  29).  Its  non-appearance 
in  Mark  is  almost  certainly  due  to  cancellation. 

Ver.  4.  And  there  appeared  unto  them.  The  idea  of  simultaneous 
"vision"  to  several  individuals  presents  no  obstacle  to  the  biblical 
writer's  mind,  because  "vision"  to  him  consists  merely  in  opening 
the  eyes  of  one  or  more  to  see  what  is  actually  present  in  the  spiritual 
realm,  but  invisible  to  carnal  sense  (II  Kings  6:  17).  Moses  and  Elias. 
The  "witnesses  of  Messiah."  Moses  is  an  addition  to  the  earlier  ex- 
pectation of  Elias  only  (Mai.  4:  5;  ver.  11).  The  name  alternates  in 
Jewish  apocalypse  with  "Enoch."  Both  forms  rest  on  a  combination 
of  Zech.  4:  3,  11-14  with  Mai.  4:  4-6,  perhaps  interpreting  the  two 
"sons  of  oil"  as  the  anointers  of  Messiah  (the  "Anointed").  From 
the  fact  that  they  "stand  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord  of  the  whole 
earth"  (i.e.,  not  with  the  shades  in  the  underworld,  but  in  heaven)  it 
was  inferred  that  they  were  "the  men  which  were  taken  up,  which 
have  not  tasted  death  from  their  birth"  (II  Esdr.  6:  26).  In  the 
Talmud1  and  Rev.  11:3-6  these  are  Moses2  and  Elias.  In  extra- 
biblical  sources  Enoch3  and  Elias.  R  follows  the  form  which  makes 
Elias  alone  the  "anointer"  in  ver.  11  and  1:  2-11,  and  makes  the  dis- 
ciples the  "witnesses,"  ver.  1.  Here  he  incorporates  an  "apocalypse" 
in  which  the  other  form  is  followed.  In  Lk.  16:  26-31  the  coming  of 
the  "witnesses"  Moses  and  Elias  "from  the  dead"  is  tempered  down 
to  the  witness  given  in  their  writings.  Literal  identification  of  John 
with  Elias  is  avoided  by  Luke  (Lk.  1:  16,  17,  76,  77;  note  his  cancella- 
tion of  Mk.  6:  17-29;  9:  13;  15:  34,  35).4  And' they  were  talking  with 
Jesus.  This  indefinite  statement  can  hardly  be  as  original  as  Lk.  9:31, 
which  reports  that  the  prophet  witnesses  "told  of  his  departure  which 
he  was  about  to  fulfill  in  Jerusalem."  The  motive  for  the  change  is 
obvious;  cf.  1:  13  with  Matthew-Luke. 

Ver.  5.  Peter  here  expresses  the  ideal  of  a  Messiahship  "according 
to  the  things  that  be  of  men"  (cf.  8:  32,  33).  The  utterance  in  such 
connection  has  of  course  symbolic  sense.     This  is  made  the  more 

1  Debarim  rabba,  10:  1. 

2  On  the  legend  of  the  "taking  up"  of  Moses  based  on  Dt.  34:5,  6,  see  Assumplio 
Mosvs,  quoted  in  Jude  1:9.  3  Gen.  5:  24. 

4  In  Jn.  1:  21  ;  5:  33-47  the  correction  is  made  in  the  same  sense,  but  more  em- 
phatically. In  Jn.  21:  19-24  the  tradition  of  witness-bearing  (martyria)  is  played 
upon  in  all  forms.  Peter  glorifies  God  by  martyrdom.  John  is  expected  to  sur- 
vive till  the  Coming,  but  his  "witness"  is  really  his  writings. 


124  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  9:  6-8 


Rabbi,  it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here:  and  let 
us  make  three  Habernacles;  one  for  thee, 
and  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for  Elijah. 

6  For  he  wist  not  what  to  answer;  for 

7  they  became  sore  afraid.  And  there 
came  a  cloud  overshadowing  2them:  and 
there  came  a  voice  out  of  the  cloud,  This 

8  is  my  beloved  Son:  hear  ye  him.  And  sud- 
denly looking  round  about,  they  saw  no 
one  any  more,  save  Jesus  only  with  them- 
selves. 


1  Or,  booths.  2  Sinaitic  Syriac,  him. 


R 
Qlk 


apparent  by  the  use  of  the  term  "tabernacles,"  a  stereotyped  expres- 
sion at  least  since  Paul's  use  (II  Cor.  5:  1;  cf.  II  Pt.  1:  14;  Jn.  1:  14), 
for  the  frail  "tenement  of  dust."  Peter's  (the  Jewish)  idea  of  the 
Messiahship  instead  of  leading  to  a  "transforming"  into  the  likeness 
of  Christ's  body  of  glory,  a  "clothing  upon  with  the  house  from  heaven," 
would  "conform  to  this  world"  even  the  glorified  ones,  providing 
them  with  "an  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle."  Peter  would  have 
all  abide  together  as  they  are.  The  divine  will  is  that  "we  shall  be 
changed."  Rabbi  ("Teacher,"  Jn.  1:38).  First  occurrence  of  this 
Aramaic  word  in  Mark.  It  occurs  again  in  11:  21;  14:  45.  See  note 
on  7:  28.     This  context  is  strongly  marked  by  Semitic  forms. 

Ver.  6.  The  desire  to  enjoy  the  messianic  kingdom  here  on  earth 
without  the  suffering  of  death  is  folly. i  Peter's  words  are  dictated  by 
his  "fear";  cf.  10:  32;  14:  27-31.  But  the  coincidence  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  indicates  that  the  original  connection  of  the  "fear"  was  with 
the  divine  manifestation  (Mt.  17:  6  =  Lk.  9:  34;  cf.  Dan.  8:  17,  18).  Its 
anticipation  here  as  an  explanation  of  the  folly  of  Peter's  utterance  is 
the  work  of  R. 

Ver.  7.  There  came  a  cloud  overshadowing  them.  (Sinaitic  Syriac, 
him.)  Cf.  Ex.  40:  35  (Gr.  version);  Dan.  7:  13;  Acts  1:  9;  Rev.  1:7. 
The  cloud  is  the  enshrouding  veil  of  the  divine  presence.  The  Voice 
proceeding  from  it  is  God's  voice  ("my  Son").  The  variant  of  the 
Sinaitic  Syriac  is  highly  significant,  for  it  emanates  from  a  conception 
linking  this  scene  still  more  closely  with  that  of  the  Voice  at  Jesus' 
Baptism.  Jesus  is  overshadowed  by  the  cloud  in  the  sense  of  Lk.  1 :  35. 
When  this  was  first  written  the  scene  was  perhaps  conceived  as  the  real 
beginning  of  Jesus'  sonship,  as  in  Ps.  2:  7.  This  is  my  Son,  the  Beloved 
(Luke,  "the  Elect";  Matthew,  "he  whom  I  chose").  On  the  tech- 
nical sense  of  these  messianic  titles  see  note  on  1:  11.  Proclamation 
of  Jesus'  messianic  calling  by  the  divine  Voice  belongs  more  properly 
at  this  stage  than  at  the  Baptism,  and  corroborates  the  traces  of  this  as 
the  fundamental  and  original  purport  of  8:  27-30;  cf.  Mt.  16:  17.  The 
basic  passage  is  Is.  42:  1-4  in  the  form  quoted  in  Mt.  12:  18-21.  The 
change  (by  R?)  of  pais  ("son,"  "servant  )  to  huios  ("son")  obliterates 
one  of  the  chief  elements  in  the  appropriateness  of  the  quotation. 
Jesus  is  the  suffering  Servant  of  Yahweh  of  Deutero-Isaiah,  as  in  Acts 
3:  26;  4:  27.  Hear  ye  (i.e.,  "hearken  to,"  "obey")  him.  Cf.  Acts  3:  22, 
23;  7:  37.    Jesus  is  "that  prophet"  of  Dt.  18:  15,  19,  the  second  Moses, 

*Cf.  IIEsdr.  7:29-31. 


9:9-11  THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  125 


9  And  as  they  were  coming  down  from 
the  mountain,  he  charged  them  that  they 
should  tell  no  man  what  things  they  had 
seen,  save  when  the  Son  of  man  should  have 

10  risen  again  from  the  dead.  And  they 
kept  the  saying,  questioning  among  them- 
selves what  *the  rising  again  from  the  dead 

11  should  mean.  And  they  asked 
him,  saying,  3The   scribes  say  that  Elijah 

1  /S  var.  this  When  he  shall  rise. 

2  Or,  ( How  is  it)  that  the  scribes  say  .  .  .  comet 


Vers.ll-13=Mt. 
17 :  10-13 

R(P) 


as  in  the  "Petrine"  source  of  Acts.  The  commingling  of  these  two 
elements  in  the  Christology  of  our  section  is  highly  significant  of  its 
derivation. 

Ver.  9.  One  of  the  stereotyped  features  of  apocalypse  is  the  author's 
appended  explanation  of  the  non-appearance  of  the  revelation  until 
after  the  event.  It  usually  takes  the  form  of  a  command  to  "seal  up 
the  prophecy  until  the  time  of  the  end"  (Dan.  12:  4,  9;  cf.  Rev.  10:  4; 
22:  10).  The  terminus  here  set  is  indicative  of  the  period  when  the 
doctrine  of  this  apocalypse  was  actually  promulgated.  The  Son  of 
man.     The  appropriate  title  after  8 :  38. 

Ver.  10.  What  the  rising  again  from  the  dead  should  mean.  R  in- 
dicates in  this  closing  sentence  what  (to  him)  is  the  chief  bearing  of 
the  vision.  It  bears  primarily  (to  his  mind)  on  the  disputes  which 
since  the  preaching  of  Paul  (I  Cor.  15)  had  set  Jewish  believer  against 
Gentile,  and  Gentile  Christian  against  Jew:  "With  what  body  do  they 
come?"  The  question  here  debated  is  not  Jesus'  rising  "after  three 
days,"  but  the  general  question  of  "the  rising  again  from  the  dead." 
This  of  course  is  fully  answered  in  the  Pauline  sense  in  the  apocalypse 
(vers.  2-4)  by  the  vision  of  the  "metamorphosis"  of  Jesus'  body,  and 
of  "the  men  which  had  been  taken  up"  "in  glory."  II  Pt.  1:16-18 
(ca.  150  a. d.)  naturally  finds  it  admirably  adapted  to  the  refutation 
of  those  who  were  "wresting  the  epistles  of  our  beloved  brother  Paul" 
(3:  16)  against  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  resurrection  and  judgment.1 
Paul  himself  might  have  saved  himself  the  elaborate  argument  and 
exposition  of  I  Cor.  15:  35-58  by  a  single  reference,  but  he  seems  as 
completely  unacquainted  with  this  revelation  to  Peter  in  writing  to 
the  Corinthians  on  "what  is  meant  by  the  rising  again  from  the  dead," 
as  he  is  in  writing  to  the  Galatians  on  the  matter  of  "eating  with 
the  Gentiles"  (Gal.  2:  11-21)  with  the  settlement  of  that  other  moot 
point  of  primitive  debate  by  another  special  revelation  to  Peter  in  a 
Voice  from  heaven  (Acts  10:  9-16;  11:  3;  15:  9). 

Vers.  11-13.  The  Coming  of  Elias.  With  ver.  11  the  subject  of 
8:  27 — 9:  1,  the  Revelation  of  the  doctrine  of  the- Cross,  is  resumed. 
In  response  to  the  declaration  of  Jesus  that  his  martyrdom  will  lead 
at  once  to  the  Coming,  within  the  lifetime  of  the  bystanders,  the  dis- 
ciples ask  an  explanation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  previous  coming  of 
Elijah.  How  triumphantly  champions  of  the  Synagogue  held  up  the 
prophecy  from  Mai.  4:  4  as  a  refutation  of  Christian  doctrine  appears 
from  the  instance  of  Justin  Martyr's  debate  with  Trypho  already  quoted 

1  Cf .  Ep.  of  Polycarp,  vii.  From  Irenaeus,  Her.  V,  is,  we  learn  that  the  particu- 
lar passage  "wrested"  was  I  Cor.  15:  50. 


126  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        9:  12-14 


12  must  first  come.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
1Elijah  indeed  cometh  first,  and  restoreth 
all  things :  and  how  is  it  written  of 
the  Son  of  man,  that  he  should  suffer  many 

13  things  and  be  set  at  nought?  But 
I  say  unto  you,  that  Elijah  is  come,  and 
they  have  also  done  unto  him  whatsoever 
they  listed,  even  as  it  is  written  of  him. 

14  And  when  2they  came  to  the  disciples, 
2they  saw  a  great  multitude   about  them, 

1  Or,  Doth  Elijah  indeed  come  .  .  .  ?     How  then. 

2  /3  var.  he. 


R 
R(P) 


9:14-29=Mt. 
17 :  14-20=Lk. 
9 :  37^13 
R(P) 


(above,  p.  11).  In  the  present  context  no  account  is  taken  of  the  other 
"son  of  oil,"  Moses  or  Enoch,  but  the  reply  takes  cognizance  of  some- 
what more  than  the  canonical  elements  of  the  tradition  in  declaring 
the  martyrdom  of  the  Baptist  to  have  been  predicted  in  "scripture." 
Our  only  trace  of  this  prediction  is  in  a  Jewish  apocalyptic  legend  pre- 
served in  the  Slavonic  under  the  pseudonym  of  the  book  of  Biblical 
Antiquities  of  Philo,1  wherein  the  reappearance  and  martyrdom  of  Elijah 
are  related  in  a  manner  showing  connection  with  the  legend  of  Rev. 
11:  7-13.  But  the  Coming  of  Elias  to  "restore  all  things"  is  amply 
attested  as  a  current  belief  in  the  New  Testament  itself  and  in  many 
pre-Christian  writings.  In  the  present  context  the  objection  is  an- 
swered by  pointing  to  the  martyrdom  of  the  Baptist,  who  had  been  the 
"anointer"  of  Jesus,  as  well  as  the  great  "restorer  of  the  tribes" 
(Ecclus.  48:  10;  cf.  Mt.  11:  14).  In  our  present  context  no  explana- 
tion is  given  of  the  further  element  of  the  legend  which  declared  that 
after  his  martyrdom  Elias  would  return  from  the  dead  (Rev.  11:  11;  cf. 
Mk.  6:  14);  but  in  Justin  this  lack  is  supplied  by  the  doctrine  that  the 
Baptist-Elijah  will  appear  in  glory  as  the  forerunner  of  the  second 
Coming  of  Jesus,  just  as  he  had  appeared  as  his  forerunner  on  earth.2 — 
Note  Luke's  cancellation  of  these  verses. 

Ver.  12.  Elijah  .  .  .  restoreth  all  things.  See  var.  rend.  A  fixed 
element  of  Christian  tradition;  cf.  Acts  3:  21.  Elijah  is  the  "restorer 
of  the  tribes"  (Ecclus.  48:  10)  because  of  Mai.  4:  4  and  I  Kings  18:  37. 
Without  the  Great  Repentance  the  Day  of  Yahweh  would  be  a  curse 
instead  of  blessing  (cf.  Rev.  11:  13).  The  identification  of  the  move- 
ment of  the  Baptist  with  this  Great  Repentance  seems  to  be  an  au- 
thentic teaching  of  Jesus  (Mt.  21:  23-32).  And  how  is  it  written  .  .  . 
set  at  nought?  This  clause  appears  in  all  the  mss.,  and  even  in  Mat- 
thew; though  its  position  is  improved  in  Mt.  17:  12;  but  it  has  some- 
what the  appearance  of  being  a  gloss  on  ver.  13,  by  some  reader  who 
missed  all  reference  to  the  scriptural  predictions  of  the  Suffering  of 
Christ.     See,  however,  the  var.  rend,  of  ver.  12. 

Ver.  13.  On  the  "scriptural"  prediction  of  the  martyrdom  of  Elias 
see  note  on  vers.  11-13.  The  reference  carries  us  back  to  the  starting- 
point  of  the  preceding  Division,  6:  14-29. 

Vers.  14-29.  Casting  out  the  Dumb  Devil.  For  the  original  setting 
of  this  incident  and  the  motive  for  its  present  connection  see  Criticism. 


1  See  R.  Harris  in  N.  Y.  Independent,  1900.  2  Dial.,  xlix. 


9:  15-21 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


127 


16 
17 


IS 


15  and  scribes  questioning  with  them.  And 
straightway  all  the  multitude,  when  they 
saw  him,  were  greatly  amazed,  and  running 
to  him  saluted  him.  And  he  asked  them, 
What  question  ye  with  them?  And  one 
of  the  multitude  answered  him,  xMaster, 
I  brought  unto  thee  my  son,  which  hath  a 
dumb  spirit;  and  wheresoever  it  taketh 
him,  it  Masheth  him  down:  and  he  foameth, 
and  grindeth  his  teeth,  and  pineth  away: 
and  I  spake  to  thy  disciples  that  they 
should  cast  it  out;  and  they  were  not  able. 

19  And  he  answereth  them  and  saith,  O  faith- 
less generation,  how  long  shall  I  be  with 
you?  how  long  shall  I  bear  with  you?  bring 
him  unto  me.  And  they  brought  him  unto 
him:  and  when  he  saw  him,  straightway 
the  spirit  3tare  him  grievously;  and  he  fell 
on  the  ground  and  wallowed  foaming.  And 
he  asked  his  father,  How  long  time  is  it 
since  this  hath  come  unto  him?    And  he 


20 


21 


1  Or,  Teacher. 


3  Or,  rendeth  him. 


3  Or,  convulsed. 


(Q,  Mt.  12:  22= 
Lk.  11:  14) 


For  the  bringing  of  the  epileptic,  the  disputing  scribes,  the  surrounding 
multitude,  and  especially  the  "great  amazement"  of  the  latter,  the 
present  connection  affords  no  explanation.  Connection  with  the  scenes 
of  5:  35-43  would  explain  much.  Jesus'  return  (with  or  without  the 
three  disciples)  from  the  house  of  Jairus,  under  the  circumstances  at- 
tending his  visit  there,  might  well  fill  the  crowd  with  great  amazement. 

Ver.  18.  They  were  not  able.  The  inability  of  the  disciples  in 
Matthew  is  due  to  their  own  imperfect  faith  (Mt.  17:  20).  This  agrees 
with  the  representations  of  the  series  in  4:  35 — 5:  43  and  seems  to  be 
an  original  trait  (cf.  Q,  Mt.  17:  20,  21  =  Lk.  17:  5,  6),  faintly  reproduced 
in  ver.  23.  But  as  Mark  reproduces  the  story  not  the  unbelief  of  the 
disciples,  but  that  of  the  "generation"  (ver.  19;  cf.  8:  12-38),  and  of 
the  father  (ver.  23),  is  rebuked.  As  in  6:  4-6  the  whole  responsibility 
for  failure  is  laid  upon  the  unbelief  of  the  applicants.  Against  the 
questioning  of  "the  scribes,"  whose  point  of  view  of  course  represents 
that  of  the  Synagogue  in  R's  own  time,  Jesus  proves  that  the  real  cause 
of  failure  is  such  as  he  has  said,  by  removing  the  obstacle  of  the  father's 
unbelief,  whereupon  the  healing  ensues.  The  apologetic  adaptation, 
as  well  as  the  symbolic,  is  certainly  secondary. 

Ver.  20.  The  convulsion  into  which  the  patient  is  thrown  at  the 
first  sight  of  Jesus  expresses  R's  conception  of  the  fear  and  hatred  of 
the  evil  spirit  in  face  of  the  Deliverer  whose  function  was  to  "tread 
down  Satan  under  his  feet,"1  as  in  1:  23-26;  3:  11;  5:  7-11.  It  may 
reflect  also  R's  sense  of  the  bitter  hatred  of  that  evil  generation  evinced 
against  the  Son  of  God  (I  Thess.  2:  15,  16). 


1  Test.  Levi,  xviii.    26f.;  Ps.  91:  13. 
Lk.  10: 19;  Ac.  10:  38;  Rev.  20:  1-3. 


The    belief   is  reflected  in  Rom.  16:  20; 


128 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY         9:  22-28 


22  said,  From  a  child.  And  oft-times  it  hath 
cast  him  both  into  the  fire  and  into  the 
waters,  to  destroy  him:  but  if  thou  canst 
do  anything,  have  compassion  on  us,  and 

23  help  us.  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  If  thou 
canst!    All  things  are  possible  to  him  that 

24  believeth.  Straightway  the  father  of  the 
child  cried  out,  and  said1,  I  believe;  help 

25  thou  mine  unbelief.  And  when  Jesus  saw 
that  a  multitude  came  running  together, 
he  rebuked  the  unclean  spirit,  saying  unto 
him,  Thou  dumb  and  deaf  spirit,  I  com- 
mand thee,  come  out  of  him,  and  enter  no 

26  more  into  him.  And  having  cried  out, 
and  Horn  him  much,  he  came  out:  and 
(the  child)  became  as  one  dead;  insomuch 

27  that  the  more  part  said,  He  is  dead.  But 
Jesus  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  raised 

28  him  up;  and  he  arose.     And  when  he  was 


fi  var.  add  with  tears. 


2  Or,  convulsed. 


(Q,  Mt.  17:  21= 
Lk.  17:  5,  6) 


Ver.  22.  A  reflection  of  Israel's  sufferings  "from  a  child"  in  conse- 
quence of  its  perverse  spirit  of  unbelief.  Into  fire  and  water.  Cf .  Ps. 
66:  12. 

Ver.  23.  If  thou  canst!  An  exclamation.  Jesus  is  "astonished 
at  their  unbelief";  cf.  6:  6.  All  things  are  possible.  The  believer  is 
not  here  regarded  as  agent  but  as  recipient.  The  unbelief  of  Jesus' 
fellow-townsmen  (6:  4-6),  of  "this  generation"  (8:  12),  of  the  present 
individual,  is  the  only  obstacle  to  Jesus'  miraculous  help.  In  11:  20-24 
this  principle  is  applied  to  the  agent.  In  both  passages  we  seem  to 
have  adaptations  of  the  Q  saying  Mt.  17:  20,  21=Lk.  17:  5,  6,  echoed 
by  Paul  in  I  Cor.  13:  2.  The  original  sense  appears  to  be  an  application 
of  the  principle  I  Sam.  14:  6.  "There  is  no  restraint  to  the  Lord  to 
save  by  many  or  by  few."  God's  saving  power  is  not  limited  by  phys- 
ical difficulty,  but  by  man's  unreadiness  (Jas.  4:3;  5:  14-18).  R's 
adaptations  here  and  in  1 1 :  20-24  are  too  narrow,  scarcely  transcending 
the  realm  of  thaumaturgy.  Faith  with  Jesus  did  not  seek  to  over- 
ride the  will  of  God,  but  lent  welcome  to  its  manifestation,  and  coopera- 
tion to  its  purpose,  however  contrary  to  the  course  self-chosen.  R's 
conception  of  the  operation  of  faith  approximates  that  of  the  spell  or 
incantation,  which  seeks  to  coerce  the  divine  power,  instead  of  remov- 
ing the  obstacles  interposed  by  our  own  attitude  of  mind  in  its  path. 

Ver.  25.  Help  thou  mine  unbelief,  i.e.,  repair  its  lamentable  conse- 
quences. Enter  no  more  into  him.  Cf.  Q  (Mt.  12:  43-45  =  Lk.  11:  24- 
26).  The  description  of  the  process  of  healing  (e.g.,  ver.  266)  should 
be  read  in  the  light  of  the  symbolism.  Israel's  control  by  the  "dumb 
devil"  is  so  complete  that  many  declare  its  spiritual  life  extinct;  cf. 
Rom.  11:  1-36. 

Vers.  28,  29.  The  private  interview  "in  the  house,"  wherein  the 
true  significance  of  utterance  or  act  is  explained,  is  a  device  not  of  R 
only  but  of  the  source  (cf.  4:  10,  13-20  with  11,  12).     In  this  instance 


9:29 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


129 


come  into  the  house,  his  disciples  asked 

him  privately,  ^saying),  We  could  not  cast 

29  it  out.     And  he  said  unto  them,  This  kind 

can  come  out  by  nothing,  save  by  prayer2. 


1  Or,  How  is  it  that  we  could  not  cast  it  out  t 

2  jS  var.  add  and  fasting. 


Matthew  exhibits  the  original  sense,  whether  his  addition  of  the  Q 
saying  on  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  be  properly  attached  or  not. 
Certainly  the  original  intent  of  the  narrative  was  to  increase  and 
enlighten  the  faith  of  the  disciples;  not  to  lay  the  blame  for  all  failures 
on  the  unbelief  and  perversity  of  Israel.  A  distinction  in  "kinds" 
of  evil  spirits  as  more  or  less  amenable  to  the  power  of  the  exorcist,  be- 
longs to  R's  ideas  of  demonology,  more  especially  to  his  characteristic 
idea  of  the  Satanic  control  of  Israel,  and  not  to  the  authentic  teaching 
of  Jesus.  This  particular  demon  (Israel's  unbelief)  will  yield  only  to 
that  unceasing  prayer  which  will  avail  to  bring  about  the  Coming  (Lk. 
18:  7). 


130  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

THE  EXODUS  FROM  GALILEE.    FORSAKING  ALL 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  b.  9:30 — 10:31.  As  Jesus  passed  through 
Galilee  and  Judwa  beyond  Jordan  he  taught  his  disciples  how 
the  spirit  of  his  own  renunciation  and  martyrdom  must  ani- 
mate all  who  seek  to  enter  into  life  with  him. 

Vers.  30-32.  As  they  journeyed  from  the  region  of  Hermon 
Jesus  gave  himself  wholly  to  the  instruction  of  his  disciples, 
teaching  them  again  the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  and  how  he  must 
suffer  and  rise  again.     But  they  could  not  receive  it. 

Vers.  33-37.  In  Capernaum  he  taught  them  by  the  example 
of  a  child  whom  he  embraced  and  set  in  the  midst  how  those 
who  would  be  first  in  the  kingdom  must  be  servants  of  the  least, 
and  must  be  forward  not  to  exclude  and  to  stumble  the  weak 
brethren,  but  to  receive  even  the  least  in  his  name.  For  they 
had  been  disputing  on  the  way  about  who  should  have  rule  over 
the  rest. 

Vers.  38-42.  John  thereupon  reported  how  they  had  for- 
bidden one  who  exercised  the  gift  of  exorcism  in  the  name  of 
Jesus.  And  Jesus  rebuked  their  intolerance,  showing  how  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  in  miracles  wrought  in  the  name  of  Christ 
are  to  be  accepted  as  evidence  of  true  discipleship ,  and  that  "he 
that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us."  Also  that  the  least  act  of 
kindness  done  to  them  because  of  their  discipleship  is  deserving 
of  its  heavenly  reward,  whereas  to  put  stumbling-blocks  in  the 
way  of  a  weak  disciple  is  deserving  of  the  worst  of  punishments. 

Vers.  43-48.  So  for  all  that  causes  stumbling.  Were  it 
eye,  or  hand,  or  foot,  unsparing  rejection  is  the  price  of  spiritual 
health.  The  fire  of  Gehenna  burns  for  such  as  know  not  how 
to  cut  off  the  member  that  offends. 

Vers.  49,  50.  Fire  and  salt  have  therefore  their  place  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  common  welfare.  Pungency  of  char- 
acter is  won  through  the  flame  of  suffering.  The  salt  also 
must  persist  in  its  pungency,  but  be  employed  for  self-criticism, 
while  each  shows  to  his  brother  the  svirit  of  veace. 

SUBDIVISION  B.    9: 30—10: 31.— CRITICISM 

The  two  groups  into  which  this  subdivision  is  separated  by  the 
geographical  datum  of  9:  33  have  but  little  in  common.  The  note  of 
renunciation,  which  began  in  8:  34—36,  continues  now  in  both.  It  is 
indeed  dominant  all  through  Group  ii,  and  helps  to  explain  the  other- 
wise incongruous  collocation  of  anecdotes  pertaining  to  separation  from 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  131 

wives,1  children,2  and  worldly  goods,3  and  compensations  therefor.4 
The  grouping  is  a  consequence  of  the  actual  experience  of  a  brother- 
hood compelled  to  face  these  very  separations.  The  same  note  is  also 
fundamental  in  one  unique  paragraph  of  Group  i,5  but  the  context 
shows  that  R  has  not  taken  the  paragraph  in  this  sense.  On  the  con- 
trary his  general  theme  is  "receiving"  vs.  "stumbling"  in  the  sense 
of  Rom.  14,  and  while  the  Group  begins  with  a  doublet  of  the  Quarrel 
for  Precedence,8  and  another  of  the  Child  in  the  Midst,7  the  object  is 
not,  as  in  the  later  and  fuller  accounts,  to  rebuke  the  Pharisaic  disposi- 
tion to  claim  reward  for  meritorious  action,  but  to  rebuke  a  spirit  of 
intolerance.  In  short,  the  whole  complex  9:  33-50,  heterogeneous  as  it 
is  in  derivation,  is  constructed  for  the  direction  of  "those  that  have 
the  rulership  over  you."  It  thus  confronts  the  same  problem  as  the 
corresponding  section  of  Matthew,8  though  in  a  spirit  much  more  akin 
to  Rom.  14.  In  fact  in  9:  38-40  it  flatly  reverses  the  prescriptions  of 
Mt.  7:  21-23;  12:  30.  But  as  Matthew's  agglutination  has  but  meager 
support  in  Luke,  and  is  clearly  framed  as  a  sequel  to  the  Bestowal  of 
the  Primacy  upon  Peter,9  we  must  accept  the  inference  independently 
suggested  by  the  late  phraseology,10  the  heterogeneous  derivation,11  and 
the  Q  connections  of  this  material,  that  it  represents  an  addition  of  the 
latest  period  to  the  Roman  gospel,  in  the  ultra-Pauline  spirit  of  R. 

When  we  inquire  for  the  coordinating  principle  of  Group  ii12  we 
find  indeed  a  continuation  of  the  subject  of  Renunciation  and  Reward 
in  a  series  of  anecdotes  which  have  an  incidental  affinity  in  their  com- 
mon reference  to  the  household,  wives,  children,  worldly  goods,  of  all 
of  which  the  way  of  the  cross  may  require  renunciation.  A  more  vital 
connection,  however,  is  in  the  contrast  the  evangelist  now  aims  to  ex- 
hibit between  the  Pharisaic  expectation  of  reward  for  obedience  to  an 
external  commandment,  and  the  Christian  principle  of  participation 
by  grace  in  the  kingdom.  Treasure  in  heaven  is  to  be  won  by  surrender 
of  wealth ;  the  saving  of  the  life  by  losing  it.  Thus  Group  ii  becomes  a 
kind  of  pragmatic  substitute  for  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Its  first 
incident,  the  Question  of  Divorce, 13  contrasts  the  higher  and  eternal 
law  of  Him  who  in  the  beginning  made  them  male  and  female,  with  the 
law  of  "man"  which  permits  to  put  asunder.  The  next  two  incidents14 
embody  the  principle  of  salvation  by  grace  and  not  by  obedience  to 
"the  commandments."  The  rule  of  goodness  is  to  be  like  Him  who 
alone  is  worthy  to  be  called  "good"  and  to  follow  the  utter  self-sacri- 
fice of  Jesus  (cf.  Eph.  5:  1,  2).  Finally  vers.  23-31  apply  the  principle 
to  the  special  case  of  renunciation  of  worldly  goods.  Even  this  does 
not  give  claim  to  special  reward.15  All  are  called  upon  to  renounce 
everything,  and  all  have  equal  right  to  the  compensations  of  this  world, 
and  a  share  in  the  world  to  come.  But  there  is  no  purchasing  of  titles 
of  nobility  in  that  world  by  special  advances  in  this.  The  concluding 
portion  of  the  Group  has  its  parallel  in  other  discourse  material  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,18  interjected  by  both  at  this  period,  and  is  clearly  au- 
thentic. Moreover  its  whole  spirit  is  of  the  very  essence  of  Paul's 
gospel,  in  striking  contrast  with  that  of  Matthew. 

The  slight  changes  effected  by  our  first  evangelist  in  transferring  to 
his  own  pages  the  story  of  the  Rich  Inquirer17  are  here  most  illuminat- 
ing.   The  dependence  is  sufficiently  demonstrated  by  the  change  of 

1 10:  1-12.            2  10:  13-16.  8  10:  17-22.            4  10:  23-31.             «  9:43-50. 

•9:33-35=10:41-45.  ?9:  36>  37a=i0:  13-16.                «  Mt.  17:  24— 18:35. 

9  Mt.  16:  17.         io  Ver.  41.  »  See  notes  on  vers.  35.  37,  49,  50.        >2  10:  1-31. 

»  10:  1-12.      n  Vera.  13-22.  I5Cf.  I  Cor.  13:  3.      "Mt.  20:  1-16;  Lk.  17:  7-10. 
« 10:  17-31. 


132  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

"Why  callest  thou  me  good?" — the  form  still  presupposed  in  the 
unaltered  phrase  "One  there  is  who  is  good" — into  "Why  askest 
thou  me  concerning  that  which  is  good?"  No  impartial  critic  will 
maintain  that  Jesus'  disclaimer  of  goodness1  is  the  later  form,  which 
has  been  substituted  for  the  colorless  "Why  askest  thou,"  etc.2  But 
what  shall  we  say  of  the  change  by  which  in  the  next  verse  Matthew 
makes  Jesus  declare  in  so  many  words  that  the  condition  of  entrance 
into  life  is  to  "keep  the  commandments"?  Could  anything  more 
flatly  contradict  both  spirit  and  letter  of  the  original?  Mark  has  the 
distinct,  definite  declaration  that  the  keeping  of  these  commandments 
leaves  lacking  the  essential  thing,  which  is — the  doctrine  of  the  cross, 
life  through  death,  the  world  to  come  by  surrender  of  this  world.  And 
Matthew,  by  the  alteration  of  a  phrase  or  two,  states  the  contrary. 
Eternal  life  is  the  reward  of  keeping  the  commandments.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Cross  is  merely  a  counsel  of  perfection,  "7/  thou  wouldest  be 
perfect,  go,  sell,"  etc.  The  only  thing  which  distinguishes  Matthew's 
doctrine  from  Pharisaism  pure  and  simple  is  the  change  in  the  nature 
of  the  commandments  to  be  kept.  It  is  now  the  ten  commandments 
(not  loosely  referred  to  as  in  Mark,  but  strictly  conformed  to  the  letter 
of  the  Old  Testament)  plus  the  new  commandment  of  Mark  12:31. 
This  is  a  photographic  revelation  of  that  Jewish-Christian  legalism 
against  which  Paul  brought  to  bear  all  the  power  both  of  his  logic  and 
his  life.  The  mere  external  occasion  of  conflict,  the  continued  obliga- 
tion of  believing  Jews  to  observe  the  ceremonial  distinctions  of  Mosaism, 
and  of  Gentiles  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  maintenance  of  this 
caste-distinction,  was  of  small  consequence,  as  Paul  reiterates,  as  com- 
pared with  the  essential  issue,  whether  salvation  is  by  works  of  the 
law  or  by  the  self-surrender  of  faith.  On  that  essential  issue  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  here  shows  itself  no  less  squarely  Pauline  than  on  the 
practical  one  of  the  Mosaic  distinctions.3  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  is 
is  just  as  squarely  un-Pauline  on  the  essential  issue  by  its  whole  concep- 
tion of  the  conditions  of  salvation.4  In  its  deliberate  alterations  of 
Mark5  and  its  repeated  insertions  of  denunciations  of  the  teachers  of 
■'lawlessness"6  it  can  only  be  designated  anti-Paulinistic,  if  not  anti- 
Pauline. 

Our  third  evangelist  is  scarcely  more  Pauline  on  the  main  issue  than 
Matthew,7  and  on  the  practical  issue  occupies  precisely  the  standpoint 
rebuked  in  Peter  in  Gal.  2:  10-21.  Jews  are  to  continue  their  observ- 
ance of  the  customs  of  Moses,  including  circumcision.  Gentiles  must 
accommodate  themselves  to  this  maintenance  of  Jewish  ceremonial 
caste.8  In  the  present  subdivision  of  Mark  there  is  special  opportunity 
to  recognize  this  fundamental  distinction. 


i  Mk.  10:  18.  2  Mt.  19:  17.  3  Mk.  7:  1-23;  10:  1-10;  12:  28-34. 

4  Cf .  the  general  presentation  of  Jesus'  higher  law  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(Mt.  5-7)  and  the  Apostolic  Commission  (Mt.  28:  20). 

a  Mt.  13:  24-30;  19:  17-21.  6  Mt.  5:  19;  7:  20-23;  13:  36-43;  24:  11, 12. 

7  Lk.  10:  25-28.  The  ambiguous  presentation  of  Pauline  doctrine  in  Acts  13:  39 
must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  this  to  mean  Faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  will 
be  accepted  as  a  supplement  for  inadequate  obedience  to  the  (simplified)  law. 

8  Acts  15:  1-35;  16:4;  21:20-26.  Note  also  the  cancellation  of  the  antl- 
legalisitc  elements  of  Mk.  (Mk.  7:  1-23;  10:  1-10)  and  of  Q  (Mt.  5:  17-37;  6:  1-8, 
16-18). 


9:  30-36 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


133 


30  A  ND  they  went  forth  from  thence,  and 
JOL    passed  through  Galilee;  and  he  would 

not  that   any  man  should  know  it. 

31  For  he  taught  his  disciples,  and  said  unto 
them,  The  Son  of  man  is  delivered  up  into 
the  hands  of  men,  and  they  shall  kill  him; 
and  when  he  is  killed,  after  three  days  he 

32  shall  rise  again.  But  they  understood  not 
the  saying,  and  were  afraid  to  ask  him. 


33 


34 


35 


36 


And  they  came  to  Capernaum:  and  when 
he  was  in  the  house  he  asked  them,  What 
were  ye  reasoning  in  the  way?  But  they 
held  their  peace:  for  they  had  disputed  one 
with  another  in  the  way,  who  *(was)  the 
2greatest.  And  he  sat  down,  and  called  the 
twelve;  3[and  he  saith  unto  them,If  any  man 
would  be  first,  he  shall  be  last  of  all,  and 
minister  of  all.]  And  he  took  a  little 

child,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them: 
and  taking  him  in  his  arms,  he  said  unto 


1  /3  var.  should  be  greatest  of  them. 
3  /3  var.  omit  [  ]. 


2  Gr.  greater. 


Vers.30-33=Mt. 

17:22,  23= 

Lk.  9:43-45 

R 


Vers.33-35=Mt. 

18:l=L,k.  9: 

46,48 
(Cf.  10:41-45= 

Mt.  20:  24-28= 

Lk.  22:  24-27) 
R(P) 


Ver.  36= Mt. 
18:2=Lk.  9: 
47 

R  (X)  (10:  13,14, 
16=Mt.  19:  13- 
15=Lk.l8:  15- 
17) 


9:  30-32.  Preliminary  Survey.  From  the  northern  limit  of  the 
Holy  Land,  the  neighborhood  of  the  ancient  Dan,  at  the  foot  of  Hermon 
(for  R  perhaps  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration),  Jesus  takes  the  direct 
road  for  Jerusalem,  passing  through  Galilee  in  secrecy.  The  trait  may 
well  be  historical;  but  to  R  the  motive  is  simply  the  desire  to  devote 
all  attention  to  private  instruction  of  the  disciples  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Cross,  to  which  they  show  the  obtuseness  which  belongs  to  his 
conception.  Mt.  17:  22  substitutes  for  this  secret  journey  through 
Galilee  a  rallying  of  Jesus'  followers  in  Galilee,  preparatory  to  the 
Exodus. 

Ver.  31.  A  repetition  of  the  prediction  in  8:  31.  Some  critics  argue 
greater  originality  for  the  present  form  on  account  of  its  greater  sim- 
plicity. In  any  event  R  is  reporting  tradition,  and  if  he  has  a  written 
source  employs  it  as  if  it  were  oral.     After  three  days.     See  on  8:  31. 

Vers.  33-35.  First  Dispute  about  Rank.  Once  more,  and  for  the 
last  time,  we  recognize  the  familiar  scenes  of  Capernaum  and  Peter's 
house.  The  trait  may  be  from  authentic  tradition.  If  so  it  were  bet- 
ter referred  to  the  connection  of  10:  13-16.  Here  as  in  10:  1,  17,  46 
R's  geographical  data  subserve  primarily  the  purposes  of  his  literary 
construction.  The  theme  so  briefly  treated  here  is  elaborated  in  what 
appears  to  be  an  authentic  and  parallel  source  in  10:  35-45  =  Lk.  22:  24- 
30.  In  Luke  it  is  connected  with  a  Q  saying  (Mt.  19:  28  =  Lk.  22:  30) 
and  the  beginnings  of  an  account  of  the  Primacy  of  Peter  (Lk.  22:  31,  32. 
See  on  10:  35-45). 

Ver.  36.  See  Criticism,  p.  131.  The  addition  here  of  the  incident 
of  the  child  is  not  really  germane,  and  has  no  place  in  the  second  ac- 


234 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


9: 37-41 


37  them,  Whosoever  shall  receive  one 
of  such  little  children  in  my  name,  receiveth 
me:  and  whosoever  receiveth  me,  receiveth 
not  me,  but  him  that  sent  me. 

38  John  said  unto  him,  fas- 
ter, we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  thy 
name:  and  we  forbade  him,  because  he  fol- 

39  lowed  not  us.  But  Jesus  said,  Forbid  him 
not:  for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a 
2mighty  work  in  my  name,  and   be  able 

40  quickly  to  speak  evil  of  me.  For  he 
that  is  not  against  3us  is  for  3us. 

41  For  whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of  water 
to  drink,  4because  ye  are  Christ's,  verily  I 
say  unto  you,  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his 


1  Or,  Teacher.  2  Gr.  power. 

4  Gr.  in  name  that  ye  are. 


3  /3  var.  you. 


Ver.  37=Mt.  18: 
5=Lk.  9:  48 

R  (Q)  (Mt.  10:  40 
=Lk.  10:  16) 


Vers.  38-40= 
(Mt.  10:41?) 
=Lk.  9:49,50 

R(X) 


R(Q) 
(Mt.  12:  30=  Lk. 

11:  23) 
Ver.  41=Mt.   10: 
42 

R 


count  (10:  35-45).  As  things  now  stand  the  Twelve  are  rebuked  in 
c.  9  for  the  spirit  of  exclusiveness  shown  in  c.  10,  and  in  c.  10  for  the 
self-seeking  ambition  shown  in  c.  9.  Matthew  corrects  the  infelicity 
by  inserting  the  saying  10:  15  here  and  omitting  it  from  10:  13-16. 
This  addition  is  required  to  give  even  prima  facie  appropriateness  to 
the  bringing  in  of  the  child.  The  Twelve  have  not  shown  unwilling- 
ness to  "receive"  the  little  ones.  But  R  is  preoccupied  with  the  desire 
to  rebuke  the  spirit  of  exclusiveness  shown  against  Paul  in  the  name 
of  the  Twelve.  On  "receiving"  vs.  "stumbling"  the  "little  ones"  cf. 
Rom.  14. 

Ver.  37.  An  adaptation  of  the  Q  saying  on  "receiving"  Jesus' 
representatives  (Mt.  10:40-42  =  Lk.  10:16).  In  Mt.  10:40-42  the 
Apostles  and  prophets  are  his  representatives;  here  the  humblest  mem- 
ber of  the  brotherhood.  The  saying  is  continued  in  ver.  41;  cf.  Mt. 
10:  42,  and  see  above,  p.  131. 

Vers.  38-40.  A  singular  addition,  the  only  instance  in  the  Gospels 
of  the  mention  of  John  alone.  In  Lk.  9:  49-56  it  is  followed  by  a 
rebuke  of  the  spirit  of  vengefulness  which  appeals  to  the  example 
of  Elijah  addressed  to  "James  and  John."1  Its  addition  here  so 
manifestly  interrupts  the  context  that  it  can  only  be  attributed  to 
editorial  work.  R's  animus  against  Jewish-Christian  claims  to  exer- 
cise the  authority  of  scribes  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  respect  to 
"binding  and  loosing,"  "receiving"  and  forbidding,  is  very  apparent 
throughout  Subdivisions  b  and  c.  The  general  theme  "receiving"  vs. 
forbidding  is  here  the  same  as  in  vers.  37,  41,  42,  but  instead  of  apply- 
ing to  the  "little  ones"  it  is  applied  to  men  who  exercise  "spiritual 
gifts"  without  conforming  to  Church  rule.  It  reverses  the  rule  of  Mt. 
7:  21-23;  12:  30.     Mt.  10:  41  is  perhaps  a  substitute. 

Ver.  41.  R.  The  principle  is  developed  in  the  "parable"  of  the 
Sheep  and  Goats  (Mt.  25:  31-46).  The  discourse  fails  to  appear,  how- 
ever, in  Luke,  and  is  with  good  reason  regarded  (W.  C.  Allen)  as  a  homily 
of  the  evangelist's  composition.  Here  the  language  itself  implies  the 
appellation  "Christian"  (Acts  11:  26)  and  is  certainly  late. 

1  See  note  on  the  title  "Sons  of  thunder"  in  3:  17. 


9: 42,  43  THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  135 


42  reward.  And  whosoever  shall  cause 
one  of  these  little  ones  that  believe  *[on 
me|  to  stumble,  it  were  better  for  him  if 
2a  great  millstone  were  hanged  about  his 
neck,  and  he  were  cast  into  the  sea. 

43  And  if  thy  hand  cause  thee  to  stumble, 
Cut  it  off: 

1  Var.  omit  on  me.  2  Gr.  a  millstone  turned  by  an  ass. 


Ver.  42= Mt.  18: 
6,  7=Lk.  17: 
1,2 

R(Q) 


Vers.  43-48= 
Mt.  18:8,9= 
Mt.  5:29,30 
R(Q?) 


Ver.  42.  See  the  fuller  context  in  Q  (Mt.  18:6,  7=Lk.  17:  1,  2). 
To  stumble  has  acquired  in  the  period  of  our  evangelists  something  of 
the  technical  sense,  "become  a  backslider."  The  sense  of  the  say- 
ing is,  Put  no  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  weak.  The  same  indignant 
feeling  toward  those  who  take  advantage  of  the  weak  appears  in  Rom. 
14:  13-23,  but  it  is  not  merely  Pauline.  It  is  the  converse  of  that 
yearning  for  the  "lost  sheep"  which  is  the  distinctive  impulse  of  Jesus. 
Little  ones  that  believe.  Not  actual  children,  but  lowly  brethren. 
Some  mss.  omit  "on  me";  the  original  saying  will  have  had  only  "little 
ones";cf.  Lk.  17:2. 

Vers.  43-48.  Renunciation  for  the  Kingdom's  Sake.  This  passage 
is  unique  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark  for  its  display  of  the  semi-poetic  style 
of  rhetorical  structure,  by  parallelism  of  clauses,  strophe  and  anti- 
strophe.  Ver.  48  is  a  formal  colophon  from  Is.  66:  24  (Gr.  version). 
In  later  mss.  the  process  is  carried  further  still  by  adding  vers.  44  and 
46,  which  are  identical  with  48,  after  the  first  and  second  strophes. 
This  kind  of  rhetorical  form  is  given  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus  in  Q,  though 
more  often  seen  in  Matthew's  form  than  in  Luke's.  It  adapts  the 
teaching  to  preservation  in  memory,  besides  appealing  to  the  ear  by 
the  sonorous  rhythm  of  Old  Testament  prophecy.  From  the  unique- 
ness of  the  phenomenon  in  Mark,  and  the  occurrence  of  the  same  passage 
in  Mt.  5 :  29,  30  besides  its  occurrence  in  the  parallel  to  our  passage  Mt. 
18:  8,  9,  we  may  reasonably  regard  it  as  an  extract  (QMT),  though 
Luke  entirely  fails  to  reproduce  it.  This  may  be,  perhaps,  because  of 
its  liability  to  too  literal  construction,  as  in  the  case  of  Ongen;  but  from 
evidences  of  late  attachment  so  frequent  in  this  complex  it  seems  at 
least  equally  probable  that  Mark  as  known  to  Luke  did  not  contain  it. 
From  the  setting  in  Mt.  5 :  27-32  it  is  apparent  that  Matthew  gave  the 
saying  too  literal  and  limited  an  application,  as  we  speak  of  the  lustful 
eye,  the  itching  palm.  But  he  was  compelled  by  this  application  to 
drop  the  second  strophe — for  how  could  a  man  be  supposed  to  be 
tempted  by  his  foot?  In  reality,  eye,  hand,  and  foot  are  simply  illus- 
trations of  the  costliest  sacrifices.  The  saying  is  in  line  with  8:  34-38 
(Q,  Mt.  10:  20-33  =  Lk.  12:  2-9),  Lk.  14:  25-35,  and  vers.  49,  50.  It 
is  a  clarion  call  to  face  any  suffering  for  the  kingdom's  sake.  It  does 
not  belong  with  Matthew's  little  collection  of  precepts  for  the  culture 
of  Christian  morality,  nor  has  it  any  proper  relation  to  the  present  con- 
text on  receiving  vs.  stumbling,  though  it  is  possible  that  the  assonance 
("stumbling")  may  have  led  R  to  take  it  as  a  direction  to  cut  off  the 
offending  church  member. 

Ver.  43.  Cause  thee  to  stumble.  Not  "tempt  thee,"  but  "be  an 
obstacle  to  thee."  Cut  it  off.  The  figure  is  not  allegory,  as,  the  eye=a 
dear  but  seductive  friendship,  the  hand  =  a  valued  possession,  etc., 
though  R  may  have  had  in  mind  Paul's  comparison  of  church-members 


136 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        9:  45^13 


It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed, 

Rather  than  having  thy  two  hands 

To  go  into  1hell, 

Into  the  unquenchable  2fire. 

45  And  if  thy  foot  cause  thee  to  stumble, 
Cut  it  off: 

It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  halt, 
Rather  than  having  thy  two  feet 
To  be  cast  into  1hell. 

47  And  if  thine  eye  cause  thee  to  stumble, 
Cast  it  out: 

It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 

of  God  with  one  eye, 
Rather  than  having  two  eyes 
To  be  cast  into  1h.ell ; 

48  Where  their  worm  dieth  not, 
And  the  fire  is  not  quenched. 

1  Gr.  Gehenna. 

2  Vers.  44  and  46  (which  are  identical  with  ver.  48)  are  omit- 
ted by  the  best  ancient  authorities. 


to  eye,  hand,  and  foot  (I  Cor.  12:  14-21).  The  figure  is  simply  hyper- 
bole, as  in  Mt.  5:  39^42;  Lk.  14:  26,  27.  If  needful  to  carry  out  the  prin- 
ciple stop  at  nothing.  Take  a  second  blow  in  the  face  if  required  by 
the  principle  of  the  divine  righteousness — overcoming  evil  vs.  retaliating 
evil.  Sacrifice  an  eye,  a  hand,  "life,"  "thy  whole  body,"  if  entrance 
into  life  requires  it.  Enter  into  life.  The  eternal  life  expected  at  the 
Coming.  From  8:  34-38  onward  we  begin  to  hear  the  theme  "inherit 
eternal  life,"  the  real  religious  ideal  of  R.  This  portion  of  the  Gospel  is 
full  of  the  echoes  of  martyrdom;  cf.  10:  17,  21,  30,  38,  39,  45.  Maimed. 
Jewish  eschatology  maintained  that  bodily  defects  were  retained  even 
in  the  resurrection  body  long  enough  for  purposes  of  recognition;  after- 
ward the  body  was  made  perfect.  Go  into  hell.  Gr.,  "Gehenna." 
The  scavenger  heaps  in  the  valley  below  Jerusalem  where  offal  was 
burned  or  left  to  putrefy.  In  the  lurid  imagination  of  the  prophets  of 
the  Restoration,  Gehenna  is  magnified  and  eternalized  in  the  inverse 
sense  from  Zion.  As  the  latter  becomes  "  the  city  of  the  Great  King  " 
in  the  Messianic  Age,  so  the  former  the  place  of  destruction  of  his  ene- 
mies.    Its  fires  are  unquenchable,  its  miseries  hopeless. 

Ver.  48.  Quoted  from  Is.  66:  24.  Assuming  the  words  to  be  part 
of  the  saying  and  not  a  literary  embellishment  of  some  reporter  or 
editor,  it  is  still  unjustifiable  to  take  a  mere  warning  against  the  pun- 
ishment depicted  by  the  Old  Testament  prophets  as  the  fate  of  rene- 
gade and  unworthy  Israelites,  as  if  Jesus  were  indoctrinating  a  par- 
ticular theory  of  divine  retribution.  His  meaning  is  Fear  God's  anger 
and  not  man's,  as  in  the  Q  saying,  Mt.  10:  28  =  Lk.  12:  5.  We  cannot 
even  draw  an  inference  against  the  eternal  duration  of  punishment 
from  the  phrase  "destroy  both  soul  (life)  and  body  in  Gehenna."  Jesus 
leaves  the  whole  question  of  the  fate  of  the  wicked  absolutely  open, 


9:49—10:  I  THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  137 


49  For  every  *one  shall  be  salted  with  fire2. 

50  Salt  is  good:  but  if  the  salt  have  lost 
its  saltness,  wherewith  will  ye  season  it? 

Have  salt  in  yourselves,  and  be  at 
peace  one  with  another. 

10  And  he  arose  from  thence,  and  cometh  into 
the  borders  of  Judsea  3[and]  beyond  Jor- 
dan: and  multitudes  come  together  unto 
him  again;  and,  as  he  was  wont,  he  taught 


1  /3  var.  sacrifice  .  .  .  salt. 

2  Var.  add  and  every  sacrifice  shall  be  salted  with  salt.     See 
Lev.  2:  13.  3  0  var.  omit  [  ]. 


(X) 
R(Q) 


Ver.  l=Mt.  19: 
1,  2=Lk.  13: 

R 


beyond  the  simple  warning  that  it  is  better  to  incur  any  fate  than  that 
of  the  divine  retribution  against  the  cowardly  and  insincere. 

Ver.  49.  A  mere  fragment.  The  saying  is  unknown  elsewhere. 
The  addition  made  in  some  mss.  (see  var.)  seems  to  be  an  attempt  to 
illuminate  the  obscurity.  If  correct,  the  sense  will  be:  The  persecution 
a  man  endures  (I  Pt.  4:  12)  makes  him  acceptable  to  God,  as  the 
sacrifices  were  made  acceptable  with  salt.  The  connection  with  ver. 
48  suggests  that  the  fire  of  judgment  (I  Cor.  3:  13)  was  in  R's  mind 
and  not  that  of  persecution  only.  Without  the  proving  of  fire  our 
profession  of  discipleship  is  insipid  (Heb.  12:  8). 

Ver.  50.  R  (Q)  (Mt.  5:  13  =  Lk.  14:  34,  35).  See  the  fuller  context 
in  Lk.  14:  25-35.  At  beginning  and  end  the  saying  has  been  editorially 
adapted  to  the  present  context,  where  it  forms  a  kind  of  appendix  to 
the  agglutination  9:  33-49.  The  salt  which  loses  its  saltness,  is  the 
mixture  of  sodium  chloride  with  insoluble  impurities  still  gathered  by 
the  Dead  Sea,  from  which  the  true  salt  will  dissolve  out  if  exposed  to 
dampness,  leaving  a  white,  tasteless  residuum.  The  warning  against 
similar  loss  of  principle  (cf.  Rev.  3:  15,  16)  is  not  strictly  germane  to 
the  context.  But  R  has  in  mind  the  pungency  of  "Attic  salt"  as  in  Col. 
4:6.  In  ver.  506  he  answers  the  question,  How  is  this  quality  to  be 
used? — Excellent  it  is;  its  loss  irreparable;  but  keep  pungent  criticism 
for  your  own  selves,  exercise  consideration  toward  your  brethren.  The 
order  of  the  Greek  shows  that  this  contrast,  so  closely  in  line  with  Rom. 
14:  13,  gives  the  sense  intended. 

10:  1-12.  The  Question  of  Divorce.  On  the  original  bearing  of  the 
colloquy  see  under  Criticism,  p.  131.  R  introduces  it  here  apropos 
of  renunciations.  Christian  profession  in  but  too  many  instances  in 
apostolic  times  could  only  be  made  at  the  cost  of  separation  from  wife 
or  husband  (I  Cor.  7:  15).  It  is  naturally  not  included  among  the 
required  renunciations  of  10:  29,  30,  but  takes  its  place  in  this  connec- 
tion because  of  practical  experience,  as  in  I  Cor.  7:  10-17,  where  Paul 
attests  the  saying  of  Jesus  on  the  indissolubility  of  marriage.  It  is 
reproduced  in  Q  (Mt.  5:  31,  32  =  Lk.  16:  18),  but  in  both  occurrences 
Matthew  has  the  characteristic  addition  "except  for  fornication," 
transmuting  it  from  a  prophetic  principle  (Mai.  2:  16)  into  a  bit  of 
ecclesiastical  legislation.  Matthew's  version  of  the  present  incident 
conceives  it  as  a  masterly  piece  of  scribal  interpretation,  reconciling  two 
seemingly  conflicting  passages  from  Moses  (Gen.  1:  27;  2:  24  and  Dt. 
24:  3)  on  the  principle  of  accommodation.     Jesus  shows  himself  a  true 


138  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  10: 2-4 


them  again.  And  there  came  unto 

him  ^Pharisees],  and  asked  him,  Is  it  law- 
ful for  a  man  to  put  away  (his)  wife?  tempt- 
ing him.  And  he  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  What  did  Moses  command  you? 
And  they  said,  Moses  suffered  to  write  a 
bill  of  divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away. 


1  /3  var.  They  came  and  asked. 


Vers.  2-9=Mt. 
19:3-8 
(X) 


scribe  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Mt.  13:  52),  solving  the  famous  dis- 
pute of  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel  in  favor  of  the  stricter  inter- 
pretation of  the  former.  In  Mark,  Jesus  does  not  follow  the  rabbinic 
method  of  appealing  from  Scripture  to  Scripture,  but,  as  in  7:  8,  from 
the  law  of  Moses  to  the  law  of  God  (see  on  ver.  9) .  Luke  omits  this 
radical  section  of  Mark,  together  with  anti-legalistic  material  in  general. 
Only  in  Lk.  16:  18  a  trace  remains,  where  his  idea  seems  to  be  that  the 
Pharisees'  practice  of  divorce  was  in  contravention  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
It  is  apparent  that  in  Q  (Mt.  5:  31,  32  =  Lk.  16:  18=Mk.  10:  10,  11)  as 
well  as  Mark,  Jesus'  denunciation  of  divorce  as  "adultery"  was  set  in 
opposition  to  the  Mosaic  enactment.  In  Mk.  10:  1-9  this  conflict  takes 
the  form  of  a  dialogue  with  the  Pharisees,  with  appeal  from  the  written 
law  of  "man"  to  the  eternal  law.  In  Q  it  takes  the  form  of  teaching 
regarding  the  validity  of  the  Mosaic  code.  Matthew's  idea  is,  Chris- 
tianity continues  the  commandment  on  a  higher  plane.  Luke's  is 
obscure,  but  seems  to  issue  in  the  principle:  The  law  had  validity 
until  John;  thereafter  Jesus  is  the  legislator.  Whether  the  attempt 
to  adjust  Jesus'  denunciation  of  divorce  to  the  Mosaic  code  really  goes 
back  to  his  own  time  and  utterance  is  doubtful.  Disputation  on  such 
points  is  characteristic  rather  of  the  apostolic  age. 
1  Ver.  1.  The  "western"  (/?)  text  is  geographically  correct;  "Judaea 
beyond  Jordan"  is  the  region  south  of  Decapolis.  Except  Samaria, 
which  with  the  Samaritans  is  wholly  ignored  by  Mark,  this  region  is 
that  which  alone,  outside  Judaea  itself,  remains  untouched  by  the 
proclamation  of  the  gospel. 

Ver.  2.  Pharisees  seems  to  be  a  transcriber's  addition  (see  var.)  to 
define  Mark's  vague,  impersonal  subject.  The  question  Is  it  lawful, 
etc.,  is  hardly  a  probable  one  in  view  of  Dt.  24:  1.  It  only  becomes 
conceivable  by  making  with  Matthew  the  addition  "for  every  cause." 
This  makes  the  incident  a  mere  referring  to  Jesus  of  the  time-honored 
dispute  between  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel  as  to  the  wider  or 
more  restricted  sense  of  the  expression  "unseemly  thing"  in  Dt.  24:  1. 
It  involves  a  transposition  of  vers.  4,  5  and  6,  7,  which  is  skilfully  ac- 
complished by  Matthew.     But  this  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  prior  to 

Vers.  3-9.  "What  did  Moses  command  you?  Cf.  Jn.  8:  17;  10:  34 
"your  law."  Jesus  is  approached  as  a  law-giver;  not  an  interpreter 
(so  Matthew).  The  law  which  he  gives  is  divine,  corresponding  to  the 
order  of  nature.  The  law  which  Moses  gave  is  human,  a  concession  to 
evil. 

Ver.  4.  Hoses  suffered.  The  requirement  of  Dt.  24:  1  is  really  a 
limitation.  In  primitive  Semitic  jurisprudence  the  husband  may  re- 
pudiate a  wife  at  pleasure.  The  advance  of  legislation  down  to  the 
present  day  is  a  uniform  progress  in  the  protection  of  the  woman  against 
this  arbitrary  power  by  the  introduction  of  new  stipulations;  return 


10:5-14 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


139 


8 


But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  For  your  hard- 
ness of  heart  he  wrote  you  this  command- 
ment. But  from  the  beginning  of  the  crea- 
tion, Male  and  female  made  he  them.  For 
this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and 
mother,  *[and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife ;]  and 
the  twain  shall  become  one  flesh:  so  that 
they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one  flesh. 
9  What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together, 

10  let  not  man  put  asunder.  And  in 

the  house  the  disciples  asked  him  again  of 
this  matter.  And  he  saith  unto  them, 
Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  and 
marry  another,  committeth  adultery  against 
her:  and  if  she  herself  shall  2put 

away  her  husband,  and  marry  another,  she 
committeth  adultery. 

And  they  brought  unto  him 
little  children,  that  he  should  touch  them: 

14  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.     But  when 
Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  moved  with  indigna- 


11 


12 


13 


1  Var.  omit  [  ]. 


2  Var.  leave. 


Vers.lO,ll=Mt. 
19:9 

R(Q) 

(Mt.  5:  31,  32= 
Lk.  16:  18) 


Vers.l3-16=Mt. 
19:13-15=Lk. 
18:15-17 

R(X) 


of  the  dowry,  written  certification,  etc.  Here  the  endeavor  is  simply 
to  prove  that  Moses'  law  is  not  divine,  as  the  Jews  consider  it,  but  only 
the  law  of  Jesus.  The  climax  in  ver.  9,  God  .  .  .  man,  is  weakened  by 
the  appending  of  vers.  10-12.  For  your  hardness  of  heart.  Cf.  6:  52; 
8:  17.  Moses'  law,  ceremonial  as  well  as  civil,  is  conceived  as  pro- 
visional; cf.  Rom.  5:  20;  Gal.  3:  19.  There  is  no  thought  of  improving 
the  conditions  of  human  society  by  amended  enactments.  The  citizen- 
ship of  Christians  is  in  heaven.  With  the  displacement  in  modern 
times  of  the  cataclysmic  theory  of  the  Coming,  arises  the  obligation  to 
improve  social  relations  by  the  best  practicable  enactments  for  the 
sanctity  of  the  home. 

Vers.  6,  7.  Male  and  female.  ...  A  man  shall  leave.  Gen.  1:  27; 
2:  24  (Gr.  version).  The  Hebrew  does  not  give  the  latter  passage  as  a 
command.  It  is  an  explanation  of  the  family  instinct.  Because 
woman  was  taken  out  of  man,  therefore  a  man  will  leave,  etc. 

Vers.  10-12.  R  (Q).  Until  the  Coming,  when  marital  relations  are 
wholly  transformed  (12:  25)  it  is  obligatory  on  Christians  to  live  in  the 
world  in  accordance  with  divine,  not  human,  law.  The  interpretation 
appended  by  R  under  the  stereotyped  device  of  a  question  by  the  dis- 
ciples privately  (4:  10,  34;  7:  17)  takes  no  account  of  the  contrast  be- 
tween divine  and  human  law  of  vers.  2-9,  but  merely  condemns  all 
divorce  with  remarriage  as  adultery.  This  is  a  second  version  of  the 
saying,  treated  as  in  Q  (Mt.  5:  31,  32  =  Lk.  16:  18).  Ver.  12  applies 
it  to  a  case  not  admissible  in  the  Orient,  but  only  under  Roman  law. 
See,  however,  the  variant  reading. 

Vers.  13-16.  Rebuke  of  the  Disciples'  Exclusive  Spirit.  In  9:  37-40 
R  has  already  shown  his  sense  of  one  application  of  this  incident.    The 


140 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       10:  15-18 


tion,  and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me;  forbid  them  not: 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God. 

15  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not 
receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
he  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein. 

16  And  he  took  them  in  his  arms,  and  blessed 
them,  laying  his  hands  upon  them. 

17  And  as  he  was  going  forth  ^nto  the  way, 
there  ran  one  to  him,  and  kneeled  to  him, 
and  asked  him,  Good  2Master,  what  shall 

18  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life?  And 
Jesus  said  unto  him,  Why  callest  thou  me 
good?  none  is  good  save  one,  (even)  God. 


1  Or,  on  his  way. 


2  Or,  Teacher. 


(Ver.  15=Mt.  18: 
2-4) 


Vers.l7-22=Mt. 
19:l&-22=Lk. 
18 :  18-23 

(X) 


last  clause  of  ver.  14  suggests  to  him  another  saying  which  rebukes  not 
the  disciples'  exclusiveness  but  their  ambition  for  rank.  Possibly  the 
original  occasion  of  the  introduction  here  of  the  incident  was  simply 
the  bidding  farewell  to  home  and  household  on  leaving  Galilee;  cf. 
9:  33-37  and  vers.  28-31. 

Ver.  13.  That  he  might  touch  them.  (Matthew,  "lay  his  hands  on 
them  and  bless  them.")  The  former  is  more  magical  in  conception,  the 
latter  more  religious.     It  rests  on  ver.  16. 

Ver.  14.  Moved  with  indignation.  Cf.  3:  5.  Matthew  and  Luke 
uniformly  cancel  such  expressions.  Of  such — those  who  have  no  claim 
but  their  weakness  and  need;  cf.  2:  17 — is  the  kingdom  of  God.  As 
appears  from  ver.  15,  R  is  here  thinking  of  the  heavenly  inheritance, 
a  thought  which  fills  Div.  IV. 

Ver.  15.  It  is  the  humble  position — not  disposition — of  a  child 
which  forms  the  point  of  comparison;  cf.  Mt.  18:  2-4  (Q?).  Children 
are  not  more  humble  than  other  people,  but  what  they  receive  comes  to 
them  of  grace  and  not  as  earned,  or  by  enforcible  right.  This  saying  is 
better  adapted  to  the  context  of  9:  33-35  on  rank  and  reward  in  the 
Kingdom.     See  above,  p.  133. 

Vers.  17-22.  The  Rich  Inquirer.  As  vers.  2-9  present  a  Paul- 
ine parallel  to  the  doctrine  of  the  passing  of  the  written  law,  Mt.  5: 
21-42,  so  vers.  17-22  parallel  doctrinally  Mt.  5:  43-48.  The  standard 
of  "goodness"  is  set  by  the  Father  in  heaven.  Observance  of  "the 
commandments"  is  well  (ver.  21a),  but  does  not  give  a  claim  to 
"eternal  life."  The  eternal  life  is  for  those  who  have  renounced  their 
lives  in  this  world  to  "follow"  Jesus  (ver.  216;  cf.  8:  34,  35),  and 
have  sacrificed  earthly  possessions  to  obtain  "treasure  in  heaven" 
(cf.  ver.  30).  On  the  complete  transformation  to  which  this  section 
has  been  subjected  by  Matthew,  see  Criticism,  p.  132. 

Ver.  17.  The  inquirer  is  so  described  as  to  present  Judaism  in  its 
most  favorable  aspect.  He  is  a  Saul  of  Tarsus  seeking  "the  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  the  law."  Matthew  and  Luke  independently  present 
kindred  teaching  at  about  the  same  point  of  the  narrative,  Lk.  17:  7-10; 
Mt.  20:  1-16. 

Ver.  18.  Why  callest  thou  me  (Matthew,  "askest  me  concerning") 
good?     The  adjective  means  "kindly,"  "gracious."     The  applicant 


10:  19-22 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


141 


19  Thou  knowest  the  commandments,  ^Do 
not  kill],  Do  not  commit  adultery,  Do  not 
steal,  Do  not  bear  false  witness,  Do  not 
defraud,  Honour  thy  father  and  mother. 

20  And  he  said  unto  him,  2Master,  all  these 
things  have  I  observed  from  my  youth. 

21  And  Jesus  looking  upon  him  loved  him, 
and  said  unto  him,  One  thing  thou  lackest: 
go,  sell  whatsoever  thou  hast,  and  give  to 
the  poor:  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in 

22  heaven:  and  come,  follow  me.  But  his 
countenance  fell  at  the  saying,  and  he  went 
away  sorrowful:  for  he  was  one  that  had 
great  possessions. 


1  P  var.  omit  [  ]. 


2  Or,  Teacher. 


(With  ver.  216 
cf.Q,Mt.6:19- 
21=Lk.  12: 
33,  34) 


is  supposed  to  be  familiar  with  such  teaching  as  vers.  13-16.  He  as- 
sumes that  Jesus'  yoke  will  be  easy.  Jesus'  reply  directs  attention  to 
Old  Testament  passages  such  as  Ps.  100:  5;  106:  1 ;  107:  1 ;  145:  9.  Mat- 
thew seeks  to  avoid  the  representation  that  Jesus  deprecated  being  called 
"good,"  but  unsuccessfully  (cf.  the  sequel  "One  is  good").  The  dep- 
recation is  indeed  unexpected,  even  without  any  assumption  of  Jesus' 
sinlessness;  for  no  derogation  to  divine  superiority  is  intended.  It  can 
hardly  be  understood  save  as  a  reflection  of  the  Q  teaching  that  the 
essence  of  sonship  is  participation  in  the  divine  "goodness"  (Mt. 
5:  43-48  =  Lk.  6:  27-36).  Even  to  R  the  "goodness"  of  Jesus  is  still 
derivative.  Hence  the  rule  of  sonship  must  be  formulated,  as  in 
Eph.  5:  1,  2. 

Ver.  19.  The  summary  of  "the  commandments"  is  purposely  gen- 
eral and  inexact.  R  might  have  added  "and  if  there  be  any  other 
(moral)  commandment"  its  observance  is  a  matter  of  common  consent. 
Matthew  reduces  to  exact  correspondence  with  the  Old  Testament  and 
adds  the  Golden  Rule,  because  the  observance  of  these  particular  rules 
is  to  him  the  real  means  of  "entering  into  life." 

Ver.  20.  What  lack  I  yet?  The  answer  of  the  Pharisee  is  not  self- 
righteous.  These  are  the  old  commandments  he  has  always  observed. 
The  sense  of  the  inadequacy  of  such  mere  formal  morality  was  not  con- 
fined to  Paul. 

Ver.  21.  Not  a  special  requirement  made  to  fit  the  inquirer's  case, 
but  as  appears  from  8:  34-36,  vers.  28-31,  and  38-40,  a  contrast  of  the 
basis  of  all  Christian  expectation  of  "eternal  life"  with  the  Jewish; 
cf.  Lk.  17:  10.  Mark's  conception — heavenly  life  and  treasure  not  the 
reward  of  "keeping  the  commandments,"  but  of  the  renunciation 
of  earthly  life  and  treasure — is  not  up  to  the  level  of  Paul's  (Rom.  6 :  23), 
but  it  marks  a  great  advance  over  legalism,  especially  as  qualified  in 
vers.  28-31  and  35-45.  With  ver.  216  cf.  Q  (Mt.  6:  19-21  =Lk.  12:  33, 
34).  The  treasure  is  not  conceived  as  enjoyed  in  heaven,  but  as  "laid 
up,"  or  "reserved,  in  heaven  for  you  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the  last 
time"  (I  Pt.  1:4).  The  new  Jerusalem  and  kingdom  of  Messiah  are 
always  conceived  as  on  earth  (Phil.  3:  20;  Rev.  21:  2). 

Ver.  22  has  the  appearance  of  an  editorial  addition  to  link  in  the 
sayings  of  vers.  23-27. 


142 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       10:23-27 


23  And  Jesus  looked  round  about,  and  saith 
unto  his  disciples,  How  hardly  shall  they 
that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom 

24  of  God!  *And  the  disciples  were  amazed 
at  his  words.  But  Jesus  answereth 
again,  and  saith  unto  them,  Children,  how 
hard  is  it  2[for  them  that  trust  in  riches]  to 

25  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God!  It  is  easier 
for  a  camel  to  go  through  a  needle's  eye, 
than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  king- 

26  dom  of  God.  And  they  were  astonished 
exceedingly,  saying  3unto  him,  Then  who 

27  can  be  saved?  Jesus  looking  upon  them 
saith,  With  men  4it  is  impossible,  but  not 
with  God:  for  all  things  are  possible  with 

1  B  var.  insert  here  ver.  25. 

2  Var.  omit  for  them  that_  trust  in  riches. 

3  Many  ancient  authorities  read  among  themselves. 

4  B  var.  this  is  impossible,  but-with  God  it  is  possible. 


Vers.23-27=Mt. 
19:  23-26=Lk. 
18 :  24-27 

(X) 


R(X) 


Vers.  23-27.  The  Danger  of  Wealth.  The  saying  about  the  obsta- 
cle of  wealth  to  salvation  is  given  twice  over  in  slightly  different  form, 
apparently  from  two  different  sources  (see  var.).  Jesus'  attitude  on 
the  question — and  the  evangelist's — is  determined  by  the  immediate 
necessity  of  courage  for  renunciation.     The  saying  is  the  outcome  of 

Eractical  experience;  the  comparison  is  one  of  Jesus'  characteristic 
yperboles.  To  substitute  a  "hawser"  (camilos  for  camelos),  or  im- 
agine a  small  gate  called  the  Needle's  Eye,  is  as  insipid  as  to  reduce  the 
saying  "They  strain  out  a  gnat  and  swallow  a  camel"  to  "swallow  a 
goat."  Of  course  the  clause  "for  them  that  trust  in  riches"  inserted 
in  some  mss.  is  a  mere  transcriber's  attempt  to  smooth  a  harsh  saying. 
The  addition  is  revealed  as  unauthentic  by  ver.  26. 

Ver.  27  reflects  the  feeling  of  the  apostolic  age  (Ac.  2:  44,  45;  4:  31-35; 
I  Cor.  13:  3)  that  the  renunciation  of  wealth  is  a  special  operation  of 
"the  Spirit."  Rich  men  who  had  done  it  were  rare.  Barnabas,  the 
uncle  of  Mark,  was  an  eminent  example.  As  in  the  case  of  divorce  legis- 
lation (above,  p.  139)  the  change  of  attitude  toward  the  world  involved 
in  the  effort  to  build  the  kingdom  in  it  instead  of  saving  remnants  from 
it,  implies  a  totally  different  disposition  of  wealth. 

Vers.  28-31.  The  Reward  of  Renunciation.  In  this  appendix  to 
the  incident  of  the  Rich  Inquirer  R  seems  to  have  substituted  a  saying 
spoken  out  of  the  experience  of  a  Church  rich  in  martyrs,  and  kindred  to 
3 :  35,  for  the  reward  of  the  Twelve  as  given  by  Q  (Mt.  19 :28  =  Lk.  22 :  28- 
30).  The  Twelve  thus  are  placed  on  a  level  of  equality  with  all  follow- 
ers, who  in  the  Church  brotherhood  are  compensated  for  their  worldly 
losses  (though  warned  of  "persecutions")  with  prospect  of  the  common 
heavenly  reward  hereafter.  But  even  this  promise  is  accompanied  by 
the  warning  that  later  comers  may  be  preferred  (ver.  31).  In  Q  the 
promise  of  "sitting  on  thrones  and  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel" 
marks  the  acme  of  apocalyptic  anticipation,  and  has  support  in  I  Cor. 
6:  2,  where,  however,  the  promise  is  to  "the  saints"  in  general.  The 
inference  is  unavoidable  that  the  more  democratic  form  of  Mark  is  the 
later,  though  neither  that  of  Q  nor  Mark  can  well  be  primitive.     The 


K):  28-31 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


143 


28  God.  Peter  began  to  say  unto  him,  Lo, 
we  have  left  all,  and  have  followed  thee. 

29  Jesus  said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  is 
no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  brethren, 
or  sisters,  or  mother,  or  father,  or  children, 
or  lands,  for  my  sake,  and  for  the  gospel's 

30  sake,  but  he  shall  receive  *a  hundredfold 
now  in  this  time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and 
sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children,  and 
lands,  with  persecutions;  and  in  the  2world 

31  to  come  eternal  life.  But  many  (that  are) 
first  shall  be  last;  and  the  last  first. 


1  Or,  a  hundredfold; — now,  in  this  time,  houses  . 
seculions,  and  in  the  world  to  come,  etc. 


.  with  per- 
2  Or,  age. 


Vers.28-31=Mt. 
19:  37-30=  Lk. 
18 : 28-30 

R(Q) 


(Mt.    19:  28=Lk. 
22:  28-30) 


(Mt.   20:  16=Lk. 
13:  30) 


Q  promise  is  closely  connected  with  the  apocalyptic  doctrine  character- 
istic of  this  source,  wherein  Jesus  appears  throughout  as  the  future 
Christ,  the  Son  of  man  who  is  to  come  on  the  clouds  of  heaven.  Com- 
bination with  the  P  narrative  based  on  actual  remembrance  of  his  adop- 
tion of  the  role  of  leadership  without  the  earthly  rewards  of  Messiahship, 
though  not  without  encouragement  of  the  Twelve  to  look  for  vindication 
at  the  "Coming  of  the  Son  of  man,"  produces  the  intermingled  result 
of  Mark.  Jesus  himself  is  to  come  in  this  character  (9:  l1),  and  yet 
rank  and  position  in  the  kingdom  as  special  rewards  of  his  most  intimate 
disciples,  even  the  sharers  of  his  cup  (vers.  35-45),  are  strenuously 
repudiated,  along  with  all  thought  of  messianic  domination  (8:  31-33). 

Ver.  28.  Peter.  The  first  trace  of  an  individual  role  for  Peter  in 
Mark  is  the  Rebuke  8:  29-33.  Thereafter  he  appears  in  9:  5;  10:  28; 
11:  21;  14:  29,  37,  66-72.  With  the  single  partial  exception  of  11:  21, 
he  appears  always  as  the  object  of  rebuke  and  correction.  Here  Peter 
suggests  (cf.  Mt.)  that  the  Twelve  should  have  some  special  reward  for 
having  done  (cf.  1:  18-20;  2:  14)  that  which  Jesus  has  required  of  the 
Rich  Inquirer  (ver.  21). 

Vers.  29-31.  There  is  no  man.  A  rebuke  of  the  claim  of  special 
reward  for  the  Twelve.  All  who  obey  the  requirement  of  8:  34,  35 
become  proteges  of  the  Church  brotherhood,  treated  by  all  as  members 
of  their  own  family  (cf.  Rom.  16:  13).  With  persecutions.  From  these 
they  must  not  expect  to  be  exempt.  And  in  the  coming  (Messianic) 
age  eternal  life.  Cf.  8:  34-37;  9:  43-48;  10:  17.  Equivalents  to 
"salvation"  in  ver.  26.  In  the  great  impending  cataclysm  those  who 
have  lost  their  lives  for  Christ's  sake  will  find  them  again  to  share  in 
the  new  world-era  (I  Thess.  4:  15-17). 

Ver.  31.  The  general  rejection  of  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  merit,  ap- 
plied in  Q  (Mt.  20:  16  =  Lk.  13:  30)  to  the  prior  right  of  the  Jews  (Mat- 
thew, as  f ulfillers  of  the  commandment  from  of  old ;  Luke,  as  Jesus'  own 
people) ,  is  applied  by  Mark  to  the  prior  right  claimed  by  Peter  for  the 
Twelve.  Even  when  martyrdom  is  superadded  (ver.  40)  they  will 
have  no  claim  to  special  rank  or  prerogative.  It  is  interesting  to  find 
the  Palestinian  "elders"  who  were  Papias'  authority  (ca.  100-140  a.d.)2 
defending  their  doctrine  of  degrees  of  reward  in  the  world  to  come  by 
appeal  to  Mt.  13:  8;  20:  28  (/?  text).     (See  comment  on  4:  8.) 

1  Note,  however,  the  impersonal  form  of  the  prediction,  even  more  impersonal 
than  in  Q  (Mt.  10:  32=  Lk.  12:  8).  2  Papias  ap.  Irenaeus,  Her.  V,  xxxvi.  1,  2. 


144  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


RANK  AND  REWARD  IN  THE  KINGDOM 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  c.  10:  32-45.  When  Jesus  was  already  on 
the  last  stage  of  his  journey  to  martyrdom  he  took  the  Twelve 
and  told  them  a  third  time  the  mystery  of  the  cross.  But  in- 
stead of  apprehending  its  meaning,  two  of  them,  the  sons  of 
Zebedee,  began  to  ask  for  themselves  the  places  of  highest  rank 
in  the  kingdom,  assuring  him  of  their  readiness  to  suffer  martyr- 
dom with  him.  He  therefore  predicted  that  they  should  indeed 
share  his  fate,  but  rebuked  the  spirit  they  had  shown;  and  when 
the  Twelve  also  murmured  at  the  pretensions  of  James  and 
John  he  taught  them  all  how  they  must  have  in  them  a  different 
mind  from  that  of  the  world,  where  the  ambition  for  lordship 
leads  to  oppression,  and  how  the  same  spirit  must  animate  all 
his  followers  in  which  he  himself  was  seeking  to  serve,  and  even 
laying  down  his  life  as  a  redemption  price  by  which  the  many 
should  be  released  from  bondage. 

Vers.  46-52.  Thus  having  passed  through  all  the  land  they 
came  to  Jericho,  whence  the  ascent  to  Jerusalem  begins.  And 
here  Jesus  for  the  last  time  exercised  his  healing  power.  For 
as  they  were  going  forth  there  was  one  named  Bartimceus,  a 
blind  beggar,  sitting  by  the  wayside.  But  this  man  showed  the 
insight  and  power  of  his  faith  more  than  all  the  multitude,  for 
as  Jesus  was  passing  he  began  to  cry  out,  and  to  hail  him  as  the 
"Son  of  David."  Many  therefore  of  Jesus'  followers  whom  he 
had  bidden  not  to  reveal  his  messiahship,  and  of  the  rest  who 
knew  not  of  it,  began  to  rebuke  the  man,  bidding  him  hold  his 
peace.  But  he  only  cried  out  the  more  to  Jesus  as  "Son  of 
David,"  entreating  that  he  would  restore  him  his  sight.  Jesus 
therefore  bade  them  call  him,  and  when  he  came,  Jesus  with  a 
word  restored  him  his  sight  as  a  reward  of  his  great  faith,  and 
the  man  joined  in  the  throng  which  followed  him. 


SUBDIVISION  C    EPILOGUE,  10: 32-52.— CRITICISM 

Between  its  introductory  reiteration  of  the  prediction  of  the  passion,1 
and  its  healing,2  which  forms  an  epilogue  to  the  Division  as  a  whole 
and  effects  a  transition  to  that  ensuing,  our  subdivision  has  but  a  single 
incident,  which,  however,  is  related  in  vivid  detail,  and  combines  in 
itself  two  elements,  that  of  the  claim  of  James  and  John  to  places  of 


i  vfi*j.  32-34.  2  Vera.  46-52. 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  145 

special  rank  and  honor  in  the  kingdom,  and  that  of  the  Quarrel  concern- 
ing Rank  in  the  Kingdom  already  more  briefly  related  in  9 :  33-35. 

The  general  bearing  of  the  paragraph  is  in  direct  continuation  of 
Subdivision  b.  As  in  vers.  28-31  the  plea  of  Peter  on  behalf  of  the 
Twelve  for  their  renunciation  of  worldly  goods  is  answered  by  the 
denial  of  any  claim  to  special  rank  or  reward  for  this  in  the  kingdom,  so 
now  even  the  giving  of  one's  body  to  be  burned.  R  has  made  of  the 
incident  a  special  subdivision,  by  prefacing  it  with  the  third  and  most 
elaborate  prediction  of  the  passion,  as  indeed  it  is  worthy  to  form  the 
climax  of  his  whole  doctrine  of  the  Cross. 

James  and  John  are  here  regarded  as  the  martyr-apostles.  Of  the 
martyrdom  of  James  we  learn  in  Acts  12:1,2.  Papias  reported  that  of 
John  also,1  but  this  tradition,  after  various  attempts  to  reconcile  it  with 
that  which  identified  the  "surviving  witness"2  with  the  same  John,3 
by  alleging  his  enduring  unharmed  the  "baptism"  of  boiling  oil  and 
"cup"  of  poison,  was  ultimately  superseded  by  that  which  made 
his  "witness  (martyria)  and  confession"  consist  in  teaching  and 
writing.4  The  title  Boanerges  shared  with  James,  and  the  refer- 
ence in  Lk.  9:  51-56,5  afford  possible  traces  of  the  earlier  form.  At  all 
events  the  present  tradition  of  Jesus'  predicting  to  the  two  brethren  a 
share  in  his  cup  of  martyrdom  can  hardly  have  become  stereotyped  in 
this  form  until  the  event  had  placed  the  seal  of  confirmation  on  the 
"prophecy."  On  the  whole  it  seems  more  probable  that  the  claim  to 
a  place  at  the  right  and  left  hand  of  the  Son  of  man  "in  his  glory"  for 
the  two  witnesses  ("martyrs")  of  the  apostolic  company  represents 
the  feeling  of  a  Church  which  had  enshrined  them  in  this  niche  of  honor 
(filled  in  the  Transfiguration  story,  and  Rev.  11:  5,  6,  by  Moses  and 
Elias),  than  that  it  should  have  emanated  from  the  ambition  of  the  two 
Galilean  fishermen  for  themselves.  Certainly  Mark's  representation 
of  their  request  presupposes  a  degree  of  acceptance  of  the  Coming  as 
Son  of  man  which  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  their  notorious  unprepared- 
ness  for  the  manifestation  in  resurrection  glory.  Luke's  cancellation 
of  the  paragraph  is  in  line  with  his  whole  attitude  on  the  subject  of  the 
"witnesses." 

Even  if  we  reject  or  explain  away  the  testimony  of  Papias  that  John 
as  well  as  James  suffered  martyrdom  at  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  R  must 
at  least  have  looked  forward  to  the  fulfillment  "of  Jesus'  prediction  and 
their  own  promise  and  undertaking  on  his  behalf."  The  special  rank 
which  for  this  reason  James  and  John  might  be  thought  entitled  to 
claim  our  evangelist  will  not  concede.  The  assurance  Jesus  gave  them 
that  they  should  drink  his  cup  is  indeed  an  honor  almost  without  equal. 
But  this  fate,  for  which  every  true  follower  must  be  prepared,  gives  no 
claim  to  exceptional  rank  in  the  kingdom.  God's  judgment  alone  can 
determine  this.  In  a  closing  verse  of  inimitable  beauty  the  evangelist 
sums  up  his  presentation  of  "the  mind  that  was  in  Christ  Jesus."  Even 
his  sacrifice  was  only  in  obedience  to  the  principle  of  service  as  the  meas- 
ure of  greatness.0 

The  historicity  of  the  Quarrel  for  Precedence,  especially  in  the  sim- 
pler form  of  9:  33,  where  we  also  have  mention  of  Capernaum  as  the 

1  "Papias  ...  in  the  second  book  of  the  Dominical  Oracles  says  that  he 
(John)  was  killed  by  the  Jews,  and  thereby  evidently  fulfilled,  together  with  his 
brother,  Christ's  prophecy  concerning  them,  and  their  own  confession  and  under- 
taking on  his  behalf."  Chronicon  of  Georgius  Hamartolus,  supported  by  a  glossator  of 
Philip  of  Side,  Hist.  Christ.,  "Papias  in  his  second  book  says  that  John  the  Divine 
and  James  his  brother  were  killed  by  the  Jews.'r 

2Mk.  9:1.  =»Jn.  21:21-24.  4Jn.  21:24. 

sCf.  Rev.   11:  3-13,  on  the  fate  of  the  two  witnesses  (martyrs)  of  Jesus. 

8  10:  45. 


146  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

scene,  can  hardly  be  questioned.  Its  special  development  in  10:  35-45, 
as  we  have  noted,  seems  to  reflect  rather  the  frame  of  mind  of  a  Church 
zealously  loyal  to  the  memory  of  its  martyrs,  than  any  which  can  reason- 
ably be  attributed  to  the  actual  James  and  John,  who  at  this  time  were 
far  from  admitting  the  doctrine  of  the  Cross  and  second  Coming,  and 
probably  not  much  occupied  with  dreams  of  worldly  grandeur.  That 
of  the  healing  of  Bartimseus  would  also  be  more  easily  admissible  in  a 
different  connection.  Where  it  now  stands  it  may  indeed  be  considered 
to  fulfill  in  some  degree  the  function  of  the  miracle  of  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  in  Jn.  12:  18.  We  find,  however,  in  14:  3-9  another  incident 
which  seems  to  have  had  a  bearing  on  the  currents  of  messianistic  agita- 
tion which  bore  Jesus  to  his  fate,  though  as  now  located  this  relation  is 
hopelessly  obscure.1  In  Jn.  12:  1  it  is  placed  at  an  earlier  date.  Luke, 
who  cancels  one  of  Mark's  two  healings  of  the  blind,  places  side  by  side 
with  the  present  narrative  his  account  of  the  Conversion  of  Zacchaeus.2 
This  also  was  an  event  not  ill  adapted  to  the  kindling  of  enthusiasm 
among  Jesus'  followers.  The  course  of  events,  therefore,  does  not  im- 
peratively demand  the  rekindling  in  this  sporadic  instance  of  the  flame 
of  Jesus'  healing  power,  so  far  from  the  scenes  of  its  original  activity. 
In  point  of  fact  Matthew,  by  interjecting  in  20:  29-34  phrases  identical 
with  the  parallel  incident  of  9:  27-31,  and  by  his  duplication  of  the 
cure  in  both,  shows  that  there  has  at  least  been  intermingling  of  the 
two  streams  of  tradition,  even  if  the  two  healings  are  not  in  reality  mere 
replicas,  the  one  of  the  other. 


1  See,  however,  the  note  ibid.  8Lk.  19:  1-10. 


lOt 32-37 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


147 


32  A  ND  they  were  in  the  way,  going  up  to 
J\.    Jerusalem;  and  Jesus  was  going  be- 
fore them:  and   they  were  amazed; 

*and  they  that  followed  were  afraid.  And 
he  took  again  the  twelve,  and  began  to  tell 
them  the  things  that  were  to  happen  unto 

33  him,  (saying,)  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem ;  and  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered 
unto  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes;  and 
they  shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall 

34  deliver  him  unto  the  Gentiles:  and  they 
shall  mock  him,  and  shall  spit  upon  him, 
and  shall  scourge  him,  and  shall  kill  him; 
and  after  three  days  he  shall  rise  again. 

35  And  there  come  near  unto 
him  James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
saying  unto  him,  2Master,  we  would  that 
thou  shouldest  do  for  us   whatsoever  we 

36  shall  ask  of  thee.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
3 What  would  ye  that  I  should  do  for  you? 

37  And  they  said  unto  him,  Grant  unto  us 
that  we  may  sit,  one  on  thy  right  hand, 
and  one  on  (thy)  left  hand,  in  thy  glory. 


1  Or,  but  some  as  they  followed  were  afraid. 
9  ft  var.  /  will  do  it  for  you. 


2  Or,  Teacher. 


Vers.32-34=Mt. 
20:17-19=Lk. 
18 : 31-34 
R 


Ters.35-40=Mt. 
20 :  20-23  ;Cf. 
Lk.  12:  50 

(X) 


Vers.  32-34.  Third  Prediction  of  Martyrdom.  The  repetition  of  the 
theme  of  8:  31;  9:  30-32  is  for  the  sake  of  still  more  emphatically  in- 
culcating the  doctrine  of  the  Cross  (8:  34-38)  as  the  essence  of  the  gospel 
requirement.  So  consistently  does  R  cling  to  the  Pauline  doctrine,  "by 
grace  are  ye  saved,  and  that  not  of  yourselves:  it  is  the  gift  of  God," 
that  he  must  reiterate  again  his  principle  before  proceeding  to  his  third 
application,  in  which  even  the  apostolic  martyr-brethren,  the  "  sons 
of  thunder,"  appear  as  subjects  of  rebuke  for  expecting  preeminence 
in  the  kingdom  on  this  account. 

Ver.  32.  Amazed  .  .  .  afraid.  The  doctrine  of  the  Cross  evokes 
both  perplexity  and  fear;  cf.  I  Cor.  1 :  23.  Note  the  cancellation  by 
Matthew  and  Luke. 

Vers.  33,  34.  A  repetition  of  8:  31;  9:  30-32  in  more  detailed  corre- 
spondence to  the  event.  Psychological  compatibility  with  the  apostles' 
condition  of  despair  when  the  prediction  began  to  be  fulfilled  is  not  the 
consideration  present  to  R's  mind.  His  endeavor  is  only  to  show  that 
from  the  beginning  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Cross  was  proclaimed  by 
Jesus. 

Vers.  35-40.  The  Reward  of  Martyrdom.  In  vers.  35-40  we  have 
a  development  of  the  theme  9:  34,  which  is  presented  in  Lk.  22:  24-27 
in  connection  with  the  same  teaching  (vers.  41-45),  but  in  still  closer 
proximity  to  Jesus'  own  martyrdom.  Luke  thus  obtains  a  more  strik- 
ing rhetorical  contrast,  at  the  cost  of  psychological  probability;  an  in- 
stance of  the  greater  consideration  given,  even  by  the  most  historically 


148 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      JO:  38-4 J 


38  But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  not 
what  ye  ask.  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup 
that  I  drink?  x[or  to  be  baptized  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with?]    And 

39  they  said  unto  him,  We  are  able.  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  The  cup  that  I  drink 
ye  shall  drink ;  *[and  with  the  baptism  that 
I  am  baptized  withal  shall  ye  be  baptized :] 

40  but  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  or  on  (my)  left 
hand  is  not  mine  to  give :  but  (it  is  for  them) 
for  whom  it  hath  been  prepared. 

41  And  when  the  ten  heard  it,  they  began 
to  be  moved  with  indignation  concerning 


1  Mt.  20:  22,  23  omits  [  ]. 


Vers.41^5=Mt. 
20:24-28=L,k. 
22 :  24-27 

R(Q?) 


disposed  of  the  evangelists,  to  edification  than  to  historical  conditions. 
Mark's  development  of  the  theme  may  have  some  basis  in  historical 
tradition  of  the  actual  occasion  of  the  quarrel  for  precedence,  but  is 
certainly  connected  with  the  general  endeavor  of  this  Division  and  of 
the  Gospel  as  a  whole  to  counteract  an  exaggerated  reverence  paid  to 
the  Apostles.  As  in  the  predictions  placed  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  re- 
garding his  own  fate,  the  prediction  of  the  martyrdom  of  James  and 
John  is  probably  colored  by  the  event,  and  in  the  addition  of  the  refer- 
ence to  "baptism"  as  well  as  the  "cup,"  shows  adjustment  to  sacra- 
mental observance.     On  the  historicity,  see  Criticism,  p.  145. 

Ver.  38.  Drink  the  cup?  cf.  14:  36,  Ps.  16:  5;  Is.  51:  17.  Or  to  be 
baptized,  etc.  The  reference  to  baptism  is  wanting  in  Matthew,  whether 
in  ver.  38  or  ver.  39,  and  may  well  be  the  addition  of  some  early  tran- 
scriber. The  motive  is  not  merely  sacramentarian;  Lk.  12:  50  bears 
witness  to  the  currency  of  a  saying  in  line  with  the  Pauline  employment 
of  baptism  as  a  symbol  of  death  and  burial  (Rom.  6:  3,  4).  The  addi- 
tion may  have  been  made  with  a  view  to  including  this.  Later  legend 
makes  the  martyr  "baptism"  of  John  an  immersion  in  boiling  oil,  the 
"cup"  a  draught  of  poison. 

Ver.  40.  Rank  in  the  Kingdom  does  not  go  by  favor.  The  demo- 
cratic principle  asserts  itself,  as  in  ver.  29,  against  prerogative.  Even 
R  still  retains  the  sense  of  Jesus'  subordination  to  the  Father,  as  in 
Mk.  13:  32. 

Vers.  41-45.  Second  Quarrel  about  Rank.  This  fuller  version  is  a 
manifest  doublet  of  9:  33-35.  Both  there  and  in  Lk.  22:  24-27  it  lacks 
the  direct  reference  of  Jesus  to  his  own  martyrdom,  ver.  45,  the  place 
of  which  is  taken  by  the  preamble  9:  31-32  in  Mark,  and  by  the  setting 
and  ver.  27  in  Luke.  Ver.  45  introduces  in  fact  the  full  Pauline  doc- 
trine of  "the  mind  which  was  in  Christ  Jesus"  (cf.  Phil.  2:  5-11),  and 
does  not  even  stop  at  this,  but  presents  the  substitutionary  theory 
of  the  atonement  based  on  Is.  53:  11,  12  as  in  I  Pt.  2:  21-24,  with  em- 
ployment of  the  very  phraseology  ("for  many")  of  Is.  53:  11,  as  in 
14:  24.  We  must  therefore  attribute  ver.  45  with  its  characteristic 
use  of  the  title  "Son  of  man,"  to  R,  however  reluctantly.  In  reality 
it  is  only  the  principle  formulated  in  this  verse  which  so  greatly 
deserves  our  admiration.  Its  content  is  implicit  in  the  preceding 
context. 


10: 42-45  THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS  149 


42  James  and  John.  And  Jesus  called  them 
to  him,  and  saith  unto  them,  Ye  know  that 
they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over  the 
Gentiles  lord  it  over  them;  and  their  great 

43  ones  exercise  authority  over  them.  But 
it  is  not  so  among  you:  but  whosoever 
would  become  great  among  you,  shall  be 

44  your  1minister:  and  whosoever  would  be 
first    among    you,   shall    be   2servant    of 

45  all.  For  verily  the  Son  of 
man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but 
to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom 
for  many. 

1  Or,  servant.  2  Gr.  bondservant. 


Ver.  42.  The  sublime  declaration  of  the  principle  of  service  as  the 
measure  of  greatness  receives  here  the  position  which  is  its  due  in  any 
presentation  of  the  gospel.  For  a  similar  teaching  cf.  Mt.  23:  1-12. 
It  becomes  to  Paul  the  keynote  of  a  new  sociology  of  the  entire  creation 
of  personal  beings.  Arc  accounted  (or  think)  to  rule.  The  great  ones 
of  the  Gentiles  are  mere  instruments  of  demonic  powers;  I  Cor.  2:8; 
15:24-28;  Rev.  13:  2;  Lk.  4:6,  7;  Jn.  19:  11.  Their  dominion  is  a 
fleeting  semblance. 

Ver.  45.  The  Son  of  man.  The  title  is  here  employed  not  imper- 
sonally of  the  coming  divine  Judge,  but  personally  of  Jesus  as  the  one 
who  humbled  himself  but  whom  God  exalted,  a  sense  in  which  Jesus 
can  hardly  have  used  it.  And  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  (Gr.,  "in- 
stead of")  many.  Paul  attests  the  currency  from  the  earliest  period 
in  the  Church  of  the  doctrine  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to 
the  Scriptures  (I  Cor.  15:  3).  The  reference  can  only  be  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  vicarious  suffering  of  Yahweh's  Servant  in  Is.  53:  4-6,  8,  10-12 
(cf.  I  Pt.  2:  21-24)  and  a  series  of  dependent  Jewish  writings,  of  which 
the  best  example  is  IV  Maccabees.  In  this  writing  the  doctrine  of  the 
vicariousness  of  the  suffering  of  the  righteous  is  carried  to  the  point 
of  actual  substitution  of  innocent  for  guilty.1  Paul  never  employs 
this  Isaian  "scripture,"  and  avoids  the  immoral  crudity  of  the  preposi- 
tion "instead  of"  (anti)  by  which  this  view  is  expressed.  Even  in 
Acts,  where  the  Isaian  passages  are  quoted,  no  use  is  made  of  them 
beyond  the  proof  that  Jesus'  suffering  had  been  predicted,  and  was 
therefore  necessary.  Here  and  in  14:  24  Mark  goes  beyond  Paul's 
careful  use  of  language.  Full  justice  is  done  to  Jesus'  indubitable 
teaching  in  the  statement  that  he  was  "nailed  for  our  advantage  to  the 
bitter  cross."  Mark's  language  ("instead  of  many")  gives  sanction  to 
the  cruder  conception  of  substitution.  Contrary  to  a  widespread  im- 
pression the  comparison  implied  in  the  word  here  rendered  ransom,  is 
unknown  to  Paul2;  and  outside  the  present  passage  unknown  to  the 
New  Testament,  except  in  I  Pt.  1:  18  and  Heb.  9:  12. 


1  Cf.  IV  Mace.  6:  28f.;  17:  22.  "Be  propitious  to  thy  people.  Let  the  pun- 
ishment suffice  thee  that  we  have  borne  on  its  behalf.  Let  my  blood  be  a  purifica- 
tion for  them  and  accept  my  life  as  a  substitute  for  their  life." 

2  The  stem  occurs  nowhere  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  but  Tit.  2:  14,  where  the 
reference  is  to  the  deliverance  from  bondage,  as  in  Lk.  1:  6S — 2:  38;  24:  21;  Ac.  7:  35. 


150  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       10s  46-49 


46  And  they  come  to  Jericho :  and  as  he  went 
out  from  Jericho,  with  his  disciples  and  a 
great  multitude,  the  son  of  Timaeus,  Barti- 
mseus,  a  blind  beggar,  was  sitting  by  the  way 

47  side.  And  when  he  heard  that  it  was  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  he  began  to  cry  out,  and  say, 
Jesus,  thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on 

48  me.  And  many  rebuked  him,  that  he 
should  hold  his  peace:  but  he  cried  out  the 
more  a  great  deal,  Thou  son  of  David,  have 

49  mercy  on  me.  And  Jesus  stood  still,  and 
said,  Call  ye  him.  And  they  call  the  blind 
man,  saying  unto  him,  Be  of  good  cheer: 


Vers.46-52=Mf 
20: 29-34 =Lk. 
18 : 35-43 

R  (P?) 

Cf.  Mt.  9:  27-31; 

Lk.  19:  1-10 


10:  46-52.  Healing  of  Bartimaeus.  The  point  of  this  narrative  lies 
in  the  messianic  title  applied  now  for  the  first  time  to  Jesus,  and  wel- 
comed by  him  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  his  followers  to  silence  the  cry. 
The  blind  beggar  at  Jericho  thus  sounds  alone  the  theme  for  the  full 
chorus  of  11:  8-10.     On  the  historicity,  see  Criticism,  p.  146. 

Ver.  46.  The  son  of  Timaeus,  Bartimasus.  Greek  and  Aramaic  are 
identical  in  meaning.  The  former  clause  may  have  been  a  gloss  upon 
the  latter  in  the  Aramaic  source. 

Ver.  47.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  known  as  a  healer.  Either  the  inci- 
dent belongs  originally  to  Galilee,  or  Jesus'  fame  has  extended  to 
Judsea.  Son  of  David.  Repeated  in  ver.  48.  This  is  the  first  refer- 
ence in  Mark  to  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  the  Davidic  succession.  Yet  in 
Rom.  1 :  3  it  is  apparent  that  it  was  already  in  Paul's  time  advanced 
by  those  who  clung  to  "a  Christ  after  the  flesh."  Mark  is  not  ignorant 
of  the  claim,  nor  does  he  deny  the  pedigree.  His  attitude  on  the  mat- 
ter is  clearly  set  forth  in  12:  35-37.  It  is  closely  akin  to  the  Pauline, 
and  in  line  with  the  Johannine.  Jesus  is  the  Christ  of  Ps.  110:  1,  and 
David's  Lord.  If  the  title  "Son  of  David"  be  construed  in  conform- 
ity with  this,  well  and  good;  but  he  makes  no  allusion  to  the  genealo- 
gies, and  avoids  any  reference  to  Jesus'  earthly  father.  (See  note  on 
6:  3.)  Davidic  descent  was  an  honor  claimed  by  certain  families,  like 
descent  from  Mohammed  in  the  same  region  today.  In  the  case  of 
Hillel  it  was  not  considered  incompatible  with  extreme  poverty  and 
obscurity.  The  pedigrees  of  Matthew  and  Luke  are  indeed  artificial 
and  mutually  exclusive,  but  the  claim  of  Davidic  origin  is  by  no  means 
a  late  element  of  gospel  tradition.1 

Ver.  48.  The  attempt  of  Jesus'  following  to  silence  the  blind  beggar 
is  explained  as  springing  from  an  officious  desire  to  protect  the  rabbi 
from  importunity.  This  explanation  is  true  to  life  in  the  East,  but 
does  not  account  for  the  special  mention  made  of  it  here.  The  reason 
for  this  appears  in  the  repetition  in  ver.  52  of  the  phrase  from  5:  34, 
and  the  contrast  of  Jesus'  attitude  to  that  of  his  followers.  It  stands 
in  fact  in  strong  contrast  to  his  own  previous  restraint.  The  blind 
beggar  thus  comes  to  serve  as  type  of  the  lowly  remnant  in  Israel  who 
recognize  the  Lord.  Cf.  Is.  29:  23,  and  see  comment  on  8:  22-26,  and 
p.  80. 

1  Clement  of  Alexandria  reports  an  early  tradition  that  the  Gospels  which  con- 
tained the  genealogies  were  the  earliest.  If  taken  in  the  sense  that  this  type  of 
Gospel  was  the  more  primitive,  the  tradition  would  be  wholly  correct. 


10:  50-52 


THE  WAY  OF  THE  CROSS 


151 


50  rise,  he  calleth  thee.  And  he,  casting  away 
his  garment,  sprang  up,  and  came  to  Jesus. 

51  And  Jesus  answered  him,  and  said,  What 
wilt  thou  that  I  should  do  unto  thee?  And 
the  blind  man  said  unto    him,  xRabboni, 

52  that  I  may  receive  my  sight.  And  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  Go  thy  way;  thy  faith  hath 
2made  thee  whole.  And  straightway  he 
received  his  sight,  and  followed  him  in  the 
way. 


1  See  John  20:  16.     0  var.  Lord,  Rabbi. 


2  Or,  saved  thee. 


Cf.  5:  34;  Lk.  7: 
50;  8:48;  17: 
19 


Ver.  50.      Cf.   Acts   3: 8.      Rabboni.      A   fuller  form   for  Rabbi, 
"teacher."     It  is  not  clear  why  it  is  preferred  here  and  in  Jn.  20: 16. 


PART  II 
DIVISION  V.    Cc.  tt— J3 

THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 
STRUCTURE 

The  fifth  and  sixth  Divisions  of  the  Gospel  center  upon 
the  lesson  of  the  Eucharist,  as  Divisions  I,  II  had  centered 
upon  that  of  Baptism  and  Divisions  III,  IV  on  that  of  the 
Agape.  Under  the  latter  head  Mark  had  already  introduced 
the  doctrinal  import  of  Jesus'  thrice  uttered  prediction.  He 
has  now  to  describe  how  the  drama  was  enacted,  beginning 
with  Jesus'  coming  to  Zion  as  her  king. 

The  story  falls  into  three  subdivisions,  of  which  the  first 
(the  Coming  of  Zion's  King)  contains  the  story  of  the 
Purging  of  the  Temple,  an  incident  whose  historicity  is 
guaranteed  by  the  whole  succeeding  course  of  events  (see 
above,  p.  106).  We  may  well  attribute  its  graphic  traits  to 
the  P  tradition,  At  the  close  R  elaborates  a  theme  related 
to  the  Q  discourses  on  the  Baptism  of  John  and  the  Great 
Supper.1 

Subdivision  b  (Teaching  in  the  Temple)  consists  of  a  series 
of  debates  with  representatives  of  the  various  tendencies  in 
Judaism,  and  has  no  real  relation  to  the  historical  setting. 
Its  contents  are  intrinsically  related  to  such  passages  as 
2: 18—3:  6;  10:  1-9,  17-21,  and  might  well  be  derived  from 
the  same  source  (X). 

Subdivision  c  (Warning  of  Judgment)  is  the  greater  of  R's 
two  principal  attempts  at  agglutination,  corresponding  to 
the  group  of  parables  in  Part  First.2  C.  13,  the  so-called  little 
apocalypse,  consists  of  Q  material  pieced  together  with 
apocalyptic  "scriptures"  into  a  consecutive  forecast  of 
events  down  to  the  second  coming.  It  is  appended  after  the 
denunciation  of  the  scribes,  which  closes  Subdivision  b,  as 
Jesus'  final  pronouncement  upon  Israel. 

» 11:  27—12:  12;  cf.  Mt.  21:  28-32;  22:  l-14=Lk.  7:  21-30;  14: 15-24. 
a  4:  1-34. 


152 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  153 


THE  COMING  OF  ZION'S  KING 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  a.  ^x:  1 — 12:  12.  At  Jerusalem  Jesus  was  at 
first  received  ivith  acclamation,  the  multitudes  expecting  restora- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  David.  He,  however,  when  he  had  shown 
his  power  to  inflict  deserved  punishment  on  the  unrepentant 
city  by  the  miraculous  withering  of  a  fig  tree,  only  assailed  the 
abuses  of  the  priesthood  in  the  temple,  expelling  the  traders  by 
his  authoritative  ivord.  Being  called  to  account  for  this  by  the 
Sanhedrin,  he  referred  them  for  his  authority  to  the  baptism 
of  John,  and  in  allegory  predicted  the  fate  awaiting  him.  The 
course  of  these  events  was  as  follows: 

11:  1-11.  Arrived  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,  opposite  Jeru- 
salem, Jesus  showed  his  supernatural  foresight  by  the  directions 
he  gave  to  two  of  his  disciples,  arranging  for  his  entry  into  the 
city  conformably  to  the  prophecy:  "Zion,  behold  thy  King 
cometh  unto  thee,  meek  and  having  salvation,  riding  upon  an 
ass,  and  on  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass."  In  minute  detail  he 
described  to  them  where  and  how  they  would  find  an  ass 
accoidred,  standing  ready,  whose  owners  at  the  mention  of 
"the  Lord"  would  deliver  the  animal  to  them.  Thus  they 
found  it,  and  bringing  the  ass  cast  their  garments  over  it 
and  set  Jesus  upon  him.  Thus  he  rode  into  Jerusalem. 
And  many  ivho  perceived  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy  strewed 
the  path  with  their  garments  and  with  herbage  from  the  fields, 
shouting  the  Hosannah  which  belongs  to  the  Redemption 
psalm,  and  welcoming  the  advent  of  the  kingdom  of  David.  In 
the  city,  however,  Jesus  only  looked  about  him  and  returned 
to  Bethany,  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  where  he  made  his  abode 
during  the  period  of  the  feast. 

Vers.  12-19.  On  the  morrow  as  Jesus  was  on  his  way  into 
the  city  he  saw  a  fig  tree  in  full  leaf,  though  it  being  not  yet 
Passover  the  trees  were  still  bare.  And  being  hungry  he  came 
to  see  if  there  might  be  figs  on  the  tree,  though  it  was  yet  too 
early  even  for  the  first-ripe  fruit.  Finding  nothing  but  leaves 
he  spoke  to  the  tree  as  a  symbol  of  Jerusalem,  full  of  promise, 
but  bringing  forth  no  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  No  man 
shall  eat  fruit  of  thee  henceforward  forever. 

Thus  they  came  to  the  temple;  and  Jesus  seeing  it  full  of 
traders  and  extortioners  bade  them  begone,  and  overthrew  their 
seats  and  tables.  He  also  compelled  those  who  were  bearing 
burdens  to  respect  the  sanctity  of  the  place,  holding  up  to  the 


154  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

people  the  word  of  the  prophet  who  had  beforetime  denounced 
the  tvork  of  the  priests  in  turning  the  house  of  prayer  into  a  den 
of  extortioners.  And  the  priests  dared  not  resist  for  fear  of 
the  multitude,  who  stood  in  awe  of  his  teaching. 

And  as  they  went  forth  in  the  evening  toward  Bethany  they 
passed  the  place  of  the  fig  tree  which  Jesus  had  cursed,  and 
saw  it  withered  away  from  the  roots.  And  as  they  were  won- 
dering Jesus  taught  them  how  the  power  of  faith  may  do  not 
only  this,  but  even  the  rooting  up  of  mountains.  But  he  that 
asks  anything  in  prayer  must  not  doubt  in  his  heart,  nor  waver. 
His  asking  must  be  that  of  one  who  has  supreme  confidence  in 
the  Giver  as  both  able  and  willing  to  the  uttermost.  Moreover, 
he  must  harbor  no  resentment,  but  forgive  in  order  to  be  for- 
given; for  we  know  that  God  heareth  not  sinners. 

Vers.  27-33.  On  the  morrow,  as  he  was  walking  in  the 
temple  court,  a  delegation  from  the  Sanhedrin  came  to  him  to 
demand  by  what  authority  he  interfered  in  the  control  of  the 
temple.  But  Jesus  replied,  What  authority  had  John  the 
Baptist  for  his  work  of  reformation?  And  they  dared  not 
deny  his  right,  for  all  the  multitude  acknowledged  that  John 
was  a  prophet,  and  had  authority  for  his  baptism  from  heaven 
and  not  from  men.    So  they  gave  him  no  answer. 

12:  1-12.  Then  Jesus  took  up  the  word  against  them  in 
return,  holding  them  responsible  as  stewards  of  the  vineyard  of 
God,  and  charging  them  in  a  parable  with  the  murder  of  those 
whom  God  had  sent  to  assert  his  sovereign  right.  Once  and 
again  he  had  sent  prophets  bidding  those  who  had  the  rule  over 
Israel  render  to  him  his  due.  And  the  prophets  were  beaten 
and  stoned  and  slain  by  them.  Now  at  the  last  God  had  sent  his 
Son,  the  Beloved,  the  destined  Heir  of  the  Vineyard.  And  him 
the  rulers  seized  and  slew  and  cast  him  out  of  the  vineyard, 
believing  that  by  the  murder  they  would  perpetuate  their  own 
control.  Thus  did  Jesus  hold  to  the  faces  of  the  rulers  the 
murder  which  he  knew  to  be  in  their  hearts,  warning  them  that 
they  should  gain  nothing  thereby  but  the  vengeance  of  God, 
who  would  destroy  them  and  entrust  his  kingdom  to  others, 
according  to  the  prediction  of  the  Scriptures.  And  when  the 
delegation  from  the  Sanhedrin  saw  that  he  had  spoken  this 
parable  against  them,  they  would  have  seized  him,  but  desisted 
for  fear  of  the  people,  and  went  away. 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  155 


SUBDIVISION  A.    Ih  J— 12:  12—  CRITICISM 

Three  indubitably  historical  occurrences  form  the  outline  of  Sub- 
division a,  to  which  the  remainder  is  attached  more  or  less  loosely  by 
way  of  supplement  or  illustrative  embellishment.  These  occurrences 
are  (1)  the  Entry  into  Jerusalem;  (2)  the  Purging  of  the  Temple,  brack- 
eted between  the  symbolic  Cursing  of  the  Fig  Tree  and  its  Sequel; 
(3)  the  Challenge  of  Jesus  by  the  Sanhedrin  for  his  authority,  to  which 
R  appends  the  allegory  of  the  Usurpers  in  the  Vineyard. 

In  respect  to  the  so-called  Royal  Entry,  Purging  of  the  Temple  and 
Challenge  of  the  Sanhedrin,  Synoptic  tradition  shows  no  important 
variation  from  the  Markan  type.  The  Q  source  in  its  primitive  form,  it 
is  generally  admitted,  will  have  contained  no  account  of  these  events, 
vital  as  they  are  to  any  narrative  of  Jesus'  career.  Yet  throughout 
these  last  two  Divisions,  while  Matthew  clings  almost  slavishly  to 
Mark,  Luke  employs  copiously  an  independent  source.  Unfortunately 
it  is  only  by  most  general  conjecture  that  we  can  extend  to  it  the 
designation  QLK. 

The  variation  in  this  part  of  the  story  which  has  counted  most  with 
students  of  the  life  of  Christ  is  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which,  in 
accordance  with  its  consistent  plan  of  making  Jesus  come  forward  at 
the  very  outset  with  the  public  announcement  of  his  Messiahship,  and 
its  location  of  the  principal  scene  of  his  ministry  in  Jerusalem,  is  almost 
compelled  to  transfer  the  story  of  the  Purging  of  the  Temple  to  the 
beginning.  This  was  in  fact  the  one  overt  act  of  the  ministry  which 
could  be  pointed  to  as  having  relation  to  a  distinctly  Messianic  pro- 
gram. It  was  Jesus'  only  approach  to  an  act  of  political  violence.  It 
could  not  fail  to  have  as  its  immediate  consequence  the  intervention 
of  the  Sadducean  hierocracy,  followed,  as  soon  as  the  ensuing  wave  of 
popularity  had  spent  itself,  by  Jesus'  execution  at  their  instigation. 
Consistently  a  Gospel  which  made  the  messianic  program  begin  with 
the  ministry  itself,  as  does  John,  could  only  place  the  Purging  of  the 
Temple  where  it  is  placed  in  Jn.  2:  12-22.  And  yet  even  here  it  still 
remains  undetached  from  the  Challenge  and  reference  to  the  Sign  from 
heaven. '  Even  the  answer  given  the  priests,  in  spite  of  the  three  years 
supposed  to  intervene,  is  the  saying  which  in  Synoptic  tradition  occu- 
pies a  prominent  place  in  the  story  of  the  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin 
and  the  mockery  of  the  Crucified.2  On  general  historical  grounds, 
moreover,  the  Johannine  dating  of  this  occurrence  involves  a  whole 
series  of  impossibilities.  It  is  incredible  that  Jesus  before  the  ac- 
quisition of  his  Galilean  following  could  have  so  overawed  the 
priestly  authorities  as  to  accomplish  this  reform  in  face  of  an 
organized  temple  police  commanded  by  a  military  officer,3  which 
at  Passover  would  be  at  its  maximum  of  efficiency,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  Roman  support.  Equally  incredible  that  once  accomplished  the 
whole  matter  should  be  allowed  to  lapse  into  oblivion,  until  at  the 
very  end  of  Jesus'  career  witnesses  appear  who,  as  the  chief  charge 
against  him,  vaguely  recall  an  utterance  made  on  this  occasion.  Most 
incredible  of  all  is  the  harmonistic  theory  that  Jesus  repeated  a  sym- 
bolic act  which  had  proved  practically  ineffective  a  first  time — the 
authorities  offering  no  resistance! 

»  Jn.  2:  18;  cf.  Mt.  21:  23-25.  2  Jn.  2:  19;  cf.  Mk.  14:  58;  15:  29. 

»  Acts  4:1. 


156  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

On  the  contrary,  the  purging  of  the  temple,  impracticable  as  it 
would  have  been  at  any  time  before  Jesus'  "name  had  become  known," 
is  the  only  act  of  his  life  that  really  explains  his  crucifixion  as  a  Mes- 
sianic agitator  by  Roman  authority.  It  was  an  act  of  rebellion  in  the 
chief  stronghold  of  the  country  against  the  regular  authority.  For 
this  very  reason  the  records,  written  when  Christians  were  concen- 
trating every  effort  to  prove  the  political  inoffensiveness  of  their  faith, 
and  almost  equal  efforts  to  prove  that  Jewish  animosity  was  solely  due 
to  what  they  called  the  "blasphemy"  of  Jesus  in  calling  himself  the 
Son  of  God,  must  be  subject  to  discount.  They  naturally  minimize 
the  significance  of  that  which  Pilate  might  reasonably  look  upon  as  a 
messianistic  coup  d'etat.  Conversely  they  magnify  the  representation 
of  a  formal  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin,  in  which  Jesus  is  condemned 
for  the  doctrine  which  the  Church  in  their  own  time  is  actively  disputing 
with  the  Synagogue. 

The  fourth  evangelist's  report  is  therefore  quite  unserviceable  for 
the  correction  of  Mark's  account  of  the  Purging  of  the  Temple  and 
Challenge  of  the  Sanhedrin,  at  least  as  respects  date  of  occurrence.  As 
respects  the  Royal  Entry,  the  Johannine  declaration x  that  the  disciples 
did  not  at  the  time  regard  the  event  as  of  messianic  significance  is  un- 
affected by  theoretical  considerations.  We  may  well  accept  as  authentic 
an  admission  of  such  a  character.  The  details  of  correspondence  with 
the  prophecy  of  Zech.  9:9,  on  which  Mark  dilates,  and  which  Matthew 
carries  even  to  the  point  of  making  Jesus  ride  two  animals,  "an  ass,  and 
a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass,"  must  be  regarded  as  elaborated  by  the  evan- 
gelist himself.  This  verdict  must  extend  to  the  acclamations  to  "the 
Son  of  David"  and  "the  coming  kingdom  of  our  father  David,"  which 
certainly  could  not  have  escaped  the  attention  of  the  disciples,  to  say 
nothing  of  Pilate,  and  which  fall  into  verbal  coincidence  with  a  certain 
saying  reported  by  Q  on  a  much  earlier  occasion.2 

In  the  two  subordinate  elements  of  this  subdivision  the  Cursing  of 
the  Fig  Tree  and  Usurping  Husbandmen,  there  is  convincing  evidence 
of  the  hand  of  R.  In  the  case  of  the  Cursing  of  the  Fig  Tree  there  will 
be  no  disposition  in  any  quarter  to  deny  the  classification  of  the  story 
with  symbol  miracles.  If  not  a  pragmatized  parable,  it  must  be  a 
parabolic  miracle.  The  fate  of  the  tree  symbolizes  that  of  unrepentant 
Israel.3  But  all  who  admit  at  all  the  critical  principle  will  be  disposed 
to  recognize  in  Mark's  story  a  mere  adaptation  of  the  Parable  of  the 
Barren  Fig  Tree.4  The  connection  of  the  latter  with  Lk.  12:  35 — 13:  35 
makes  its  relation  to  Q  probable,  and  warrants  the  designation  QLK. 
The  interjection  of  this  discourse  material  recast  into  the  form  of  nar- 
rative will  be  only  one  more  instance  of  the  characteristic  pragmatism 
of  R. 

Finally,  the  story  of  the  Usurping  Lessees  of  the  Vineyard5  is  not  so 
much  parable  as  allegory,  in  which  Israel  is  "the  vineyard  of  the  Lord 
of  Hosts,"  as  in  Is.  5:  1-7;  the  messengers  sent  to  demand  the  fruits 
are  the  prophets,  and  Jesus  himself  is  the  "Beloved  Son."  Aside  from 
the  improbability  of  Jesus'  setting  his  own  personality  in  this  relation 
to  the  prophets,  we  cannot  understand  why  none  of  the  hearers  seems 
to  take  offense  at  the  "blasphemy,"  as  should  be  the  case  in  view  of  the 
trial  scene.6  There  are  obstacles,  accordingly,  to  regarding  this  as  true 
historic  tradition.  But  if  we  turn  to  the  Q  material  exhibited  by 
Matthew  and  Luke  we  find  at  least  a  possible  explanation  of  the  de- 


1  Jn.  12:  12-16.  «  With  11:  9,  10  cf.  Mt.  23:  39=Lk.  13:  35. 

3  Cf.  Q,  Mt.  3:  10=  Lk.  3:9.  4  With  11:  12-14  cf.  Lk.  13:  6-9. 

6  12:  1-12.  «  14:  64;  see  note  on  2:  12. 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  157 

velopment  of  such  an  allegory.  This  material  had  also  its  reference  to 
"Jerusalem  which  killeth  the  prophets  and  stone th  them  which  are  sent 
unto  her"1;  and  not  only  so,  but  in  the  particular  connection  of  the 
Challenge  of  the  Sanhedrin  it  gave  as  the  answer  of  Jesus  a  warning  of 
judgment  against  those  who  had  given  no  heed  to  John's  preaching  of 
repentance,  and  a  prediction  of  the  transfer  of  the  messianic  kingdom 
to  other  heirs.2  Placed  alongside  this  Q  form  of  the  Answer  to  the 
Challenge,  Mark's  allegory  of  the  Usurping  Husbandmen  assumes 
more  than  ever  the  appearance  of  a  transmutation  of  Jesus'  promise 
of  a  transfer  of  the  kingdom  to  the  "publicans  and  sinners  into  a 
promise  of  its  transfer  to  "other  husbandmen,"  a  championing  of  the 
disinherited  nations  against  the  exclusive  claims  of  Israel,  instead  of 
Jesus'  championing  of  the  disinherited  "little  flock"  against  the  usurpa- 
tions of  the  hierocracy. 

Setting  aside  all  elements  of  the  subdivision  which  show  traces  of 
adaptation  to  later  conditions  and  beliefs,  we  find  as  the  basic  substance 
of  the  narrative  an  account  of  Jesus'  coming  to  Jerusalem  followed  by 
a  retinue  of  Galilean  supporters,  his  abolition  of  the  obnoxious  abuses 
in  the  temple,3  and  defiance  of  the  delegation  from  the  Sanhedrin 
against  whom  he  champions  the  cause  of  the  masses.  Exclusion  from 
the  synagogues  of  Galilee  has  led  him  to  demand  their  rights  in  the 
temple  itself  at  the  hands  of  a  corrupt  and  oppressive  hierocracy. 


i  Mt.  23:  34-39= Lk.  11:  49-51;  13:  34,  35. 

2  Q,  Mt.  21:  28-32;  22:  l-14=Lk.  7:  29,  30;  14:  15-24. 

3  See  note  on  11:  15-17. 


158  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  II:  I 


11  A  ND  when  they  draw  nigh  unto  Jerusa- 
JLA.    lem,  ^unto    Bethphage]    2and  Beth- 
any, at  the  mount  of  Olives,  he  send- 
eth  two  of  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto 


1  Var.  omit  [  ].  2  Sinaitic  Syriac,  unto. 


ll:l-ll=Mt. 
21:l-ll=Lk. 

19: 28-38 
R(P) 


11:  1-10.  The  Triumphal  Entry.  The  apologetic  value  attached  by 
R  to  this  incident  appears  in  ver.  10.  The  populace  received  Jesus 
with  acclamation  because  they  were  looking  for  the  coming  kingdom. 
Not,  however,  that  of  the  Christian  ideal,  but  that  of  their  father  David. 
The  relation  of  this  to  the  preceding  paragraph  corresponds  to  that 
between  8:  27-30  and  its  sequel.  It  is  quite  apparent,  however,  that 
an  earlier  narrative,  less  concerned  with  the  didactic  application,  is 
being  worked  over  to  develop  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy  afterward 
discovered  in  the  occurrence  (Jn.  12:  16).  If  Jesus  really  in  this  instance 
went  out  of  his  way  to  symbolically  indicate  to  the  multitudes,  whose 
attention  he  could  not  otherwise  secure,  that  he  proposed  to  assume 
messianic  leadership,  and  desired  their  support  for  a  program  of  peace- 
ful reform  in  the  interest  of  the  masses,  we  must  assume  that  he  had 
friends  in  "Bethany"  by  appointment  with  whom  preparation  was 
made  for  his  riding  into  Jerusalem  in  a  manner  conspicuously  corre- 
sponding to  the  prophecy  of  Zech.  9:  9.  This  is  in  fact  a  prediction  of 
the  deliverance  of  Zion  by  a  king  lowly  and  just,  one  of  the  peasant 
class,  opposed  to  war  and  bloodshed,  choosing  the  peasants'  humble 
beast  of  burden  in  place  of  the  proud  warhorse  and  chariot.  No 
prophecy,  indeed,  is  better  adapted  to  such  a  purpose.  If  the  messianic 
enthusiasm  of  the  populace  was  to  be  aroused  without  danger  of  collision 
with  Roman  authority  it  could  only  be  by  some  such  expedient.  But 
was  Jesus  really  desirous  to  run  this  risk?  And  if  he  felt  that  the  occa- 
sion warranted  so  dangerous  an  appeal,  why  were  his  intimates  left 
to  learn  by  subsequent  reflection  what  he  meant  by  it?  (Jn.  12:  16.) 
His  attitude  in  the  story,  on  the  contrary,  is  purely  passive.  He  lets 
the  event  transpire  because  thus  it  was  written  of  him.  Certainly  our 
sources  indicate  no  motive  beyond  mere  conformation  to  Old  Testa- 
ment prediction,  and  this  is  most  unlike  the  whole  spirit  of  Jesus.  On 
the  whole  it  seems  more  probable  that  it  is  indeed  only  later  reflection 
(Jn.  12:  16)  which  has  discovered  this  profound  significance.  The 
narration  of  Jesus'  coming  to  Jerusalem  originally  had  no  further 
interest  than  to  tell  of  his  unexpectedly  hospitable  welcome. 

Ver.  1.  [Bethphage  and]  Bethany.  The  MS.  evidence  indicates  that 
"Bethphage  and"  is  a  correction  introduced  from  Matthew,  whose  geo- 
graphical knowledge  is  better  than  Mark's.  In  Luke  both  names  are 
present,  as  in  the  current  text  of  Mark,  but  the  original  surely  con- 
templated a  single  place.  Only  the  name  Bethphage  is  known  outside 
evangelic  tradition,1  and  Jn.  10:  40  (cf.  1:  28);  11: 1;  12:  1  brings  this 
Bethany  into  curious  juxtaposition  with  another  "Bethany  beyond  Jor- 
dan," at  the  same  time  making  it  the  home  of  "Mary  and  Martha,"  who 
in  Lk.  10:  38-42  appear  to  reside  in  Judaea  beyond  Jordan.  Possibly  the 
cis-Jordanic  Bethany  may  owe  its  whole  supposed  existence  to  Mark. 
The  historical  critic  will  be  wiser  at  all  events  not  to  go  beyond  "the 
mount  of  Olives,"  which  in  the  special  source  of  Luke  (Lk.  21:37) 
appears  as  Jesus'  regular  place  of  resort  (cf.  Jn.  18:  2). 

1  Stapfer,  Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  p.  61,  places  it  on  the  western  bank  of 
the  Kidron. 


11:2-9 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 


159 


2  them,  Go  your  way  into  the  village  that  is 
over  against  you:  and  straightway  as  ye 
enter  into  it,  ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied,  whereon 
no  man  ever  yet  sat;  loose  him,  and  bring 

3  him.  And  if  any  one  say  unto  you,  Why 
do  ye  this?  say  ye,  The  Lord  hath  need  of 
him;    and  straightway  he  Jwill  send  him 

4  2back  hither.  And  they  went  away,  and 
found  a  colt  tied  at  the  door  without  in  the 

5  open  street;  and  they  loose  him.  And  cer- 
tain of  them  that  stood  there  said  unto 
them,    What    do    ye,    loosing    the    colt? 

6  And  they  said  unto  them  even  as  Jesus 

7  had  said:  and  they  let  them  go.  And  they 
bring  the  colt  unto  Jesus,  and  cast  on  him 

8  their  garments;  and  he  sat  upon  him.  And 
many  spread  their  garments  upon  the  way; 
and  others  3branches,  which  they  had  cut 

9  from  the  fields.  And  they  that  went 
before,  and  they  that  followed,  cried, 
Hosanna;  Blessed  (is)  he  that  cometh  in 


1  Gr.  sendelh. 


2  Or,  again. 


3  Gr.  layers  of  leaves. 


R(Q) 
(Mt.  23:  39=Lk. 
13:  35) 


Ver.  2.  "Whereon  no  man  ever  yet  sat.  To  R  a  point  of  reverential 
significance  (cf.  Lk.  23:  53).  The  information  is  not  derived  by  inquiry 
from  the  owners  of  the  animal,  but  discovered  in  a  field  which  early 
Church  narrators  find  much  more  productive — the  Old  Testament. 
Zech.  9:  9  (Greek  version)  gives  the  prophecy  here  developed  by  Mark 
in  the  form,  "riding  upon  a  new  (i.e.,  "unbroken")  ass." 

Ver.  3.  The  Lord.  A  deeply  significant  title  in  this  Gospel  (see  on 
7:  28).  Will  send  him  back  hither.  Matthew  takes  this  as  a  prediction 
of  what  tfie  owner  will  do.  Originally  it  is,  of  course,  a  simple  promise 
of  restitution  on  Jesus'  part.  But  why  included  by  Mark,  unless  taken 
in  the  sense  understood  by  Matthew? 

Ver.  4.  In  the  open  street.  The  description  is  intended  to  show 
the  miraculous  knowledge  of  Jesus.  It  impresses  us  by  its  likeness  to 
the  descriptions  of  P  in  1:  33;  2:  2;  5:  38-40,  etc. 

Ver.  8.  Branches  (Gr.,  "green  litter";  see  var.).  Not  palm-branches 
(Jn.  12:  13),  a  symbol  of  victory  (Rev.  7:  9),  nor  even  branches  of 
fig  or  olive  trees,  which  would  be  scarcely  less  difficult  to  obtain  than 
palm  branches.  The  object  is  to  cover  the  stony  road  with  a  soft 
carpet  as  a  token  of  honor. 

Ver.  9.  Hosanna  (Heb.,  "save,  pray").  The  king  is  honored  by  the 
appeal  for  his  help.  Ev.  Hebr.  attested  the  form  "Hosanna  in  the 
highest"  (ver.  10). 1  The  complete  absence  of  any  effect  on  Jewish  or 
Roman  authorities  of  this  reported  demonstration  is  difficult  to  account 
for.  The  representation  is  that  now  Jerusalem  fulfills  the  word  of  Jesus 
(Q,  Mt.  23:39  =  Lk.  13:35). 


1  Pv.  Hebr.  ap.  Preuschen,  Antileg.,  fragt.  12. 


160 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        11:  10-14 


10  the  name  of  the  Lord:  Blessed  (is)  the  king- 
dom that  cometh,  (the  kingdom)  of  our 
father  David;  Hosanna  in  the  highest. 

11  And  he  entered  into  Jerusalem,  into  the 
temple;  and  when  he  had  looked  round 
about  upon  all  things,  it  being  now  even- 
tide, he  went  out  unto  Bethany  with  the 
twelve. 

12  And  on  the  morrow,   when  they  were 

13  come  out  from  Bethany,  he  hungered.  And 
seeing  a  fig  tree  afar  off  having  leaves,  he 
came,  if  haply  he  might  find  anything 
thereon:  and  when  he  came  to  it,  he  found 
nothing  but  leaves;  for  it  was  not  the  sea- 

14  son  of  figs.  And  he  answered  and  said  unto 
it,  No  man  eat  fruit  from  thee  hencefor- 
ward for  ever.      And  his  disciples  heard  it. 


R(P) 


Vers.l2-14=Mt. 
21:18, 19 

E,  (Qlk) 
(Lk.  13:  6-9) 


Ver.  10  interprets  the  quotation  of  Ps.  118:  25  as  applying  to  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  return  of  the  Davidic  dominion.  In  the  highest 
(places);  i.e.,  let  his  praises  be  sung  in  heaven  also  (cf.  Lk.  2:  14). 

Vers.  11-14.  Episode  of  the  Barren  Fig  Tree.  Interwoven  after 
Mark's  manner  with  the  Purging  of  the  Temple  is  a  story  of  symbolic 
miracle.  All  agree  that  Jesus'  object  was  to  teach  the  lesson  of  the 
fate  awaiting  the  city,  which  in  spite  of  fair  appearance  brought  forth 
no  fruit  worthy  of  repentance.  Interpreters  who  think  such  teaching  is 
made  really  more  forceful  and  beneficial  by  being  accompanied  by  a 
prodigy  take  the  ground  that  it  was  followed  by  the  miraculous  with- 
ering of  the  tree.  According  to  some  this  was  not  Jesus'  intention,  but 
an  unexpected  divine  intervention.  Wellhausen's  dry  remark  on  this 
is,  "The  commentator  understands  him;  God  misunderstood  him!" 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  lesson  drawn  by  the  evangelist  who  attaches 
the  agglutination  of  Q  sayings  in  1 1 :  20-25.  He  has  no  concern  what- 
ever with  the  symbolism  of  the  fate  of  unrepentant  Israel,  but  treats 
the  incident  as  plain  matter  of  fact.  Its  lesson  as  he  understands  it  is: 
Nothing  is  too  marvellous  to  be  accomplished  by  the  thaumaturgy  of 
"faith."  Requests  of  God,  however,  must  be  accompanied  by  for- 
giveness of  one's  enemies,  in  order  that  one  may  be  oneself  forgiven. 

Admitting  the  indications  that  appear  in  vers.  20-25  of  later  attach- 
ment, it  might  seem  possible  to  find  in  vers.  12-14  some  true  historical 
occurrence.  But  as  soon  as  we  try  to  lay  hold  of  something  tangible 
it  crumbles.  _  The  motive  of  "hunger"  attributed  to  Jesus  is  insuppos- 
able.  Granting  the  physical  feeling,  a  sane  man  would  not  be  impelled 
at  this  season  of  year  (cf.  ver.  13)  to  attempt  thus  to  satisfy  it.  The 
precocious  verdure  of  the  tree  might  suggest  an  object  lesson  to  the 
disciples,  but  not  the  satisfaction  of  hunger.1  Nothing  remains  but  to 
treat  vers.  12-14  also  as  a  simple  dramatization  of  the  parable  Lk.  13: 
6-9,  which  in  vers.  20-25  has  received  further  elaboration  by  the 
attachment  of  Q  sayings. 

1  The  so-called  pasquarole,  or  Easter  figs,  known  in  South  Italy  are  unknown  to 
Syria,  and  even  if  such  early  fruit  were  sought — or,  as  some  maintain,  figs  left  over 
from  the  autumn  crop(!) — it  would  be  sought  on  a  tree  bare  of  leaves,  not  one 
whose  foliage  would  conceal  any  possibilities  of  the  kind. 


lit  15  THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  1G1 


15  And  they  come  to  Jerusalem:  and  he 
entered  into  the  temple,  and  began  to 
cast  out  them  that  sold  and  them  that 


Vers.l5-19=Mt. 
21:13-17= 
Lk.  19:45^8 
=Jn.  2: 13-22 
P 


11:  15-18.  Purging  of  the  Temple.  Historically  this  is  the  incident 
which  of  all  Jesus'  ministry  was  fraught  with  the  most  momentous 
consequences.  It  shows  us  both  the  motive  for  Jesus'  going  up  to 
Jerusalem,  and  the  reason  for  the  conspiracy  which  took  his  life. 
This  significance,  of  such  value  to  the  critical  historian,  is  naturally 
veiled  in  Church  tradition  under  the  symbolic  and  religious  applica- 
tions for  which  it  was  preserved  in  catechetic  use  (cf.  Jn.  2:  13-22). 
Jesus  in  exile  had  to  choose  between  the  abandonment  of  his  campaign 
on  behalf  of  the  spiritually  disinherited  "sons"  in  Israel,  and  the  re- 
newal of  it  on  the  larger  and  far  more  perilous  scale  of  a  protest  in  their 
behalf  in  Jerusalem.  Here  was,  in  fact,  the  older  and  greater  usurpa- 
tion. The  monopolizing  of  synagogue  religion  by  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  was  really  but  a  faint  echo  of  the  older  and  more  crying 
usurpation  of  the  priestly  aristocracy,  whose  one  remaining  relic  of 
the  noble  heritage  of  the  Maccabean  wars  of  independence  was  the 
temple  stronghold.  Here  an  utterly  worldly  aristocracy  maintained 
itself  in  diplomatic  bargaining  with  Rome  at  the  expense  of  the  masses 
of  the  people.  These  were  utterly  estranged  from  the  worship.  What 
had  once  been  "a  house  of  prayer"  for  all  the  people  had  become  a 
veritable  "den  of  robbers."  The  extortion  practised  by  the  priesthood 
under  the  guise  of  Mosaic  requirement  is  something  well-nigh  incredible. 
And  under  the  unscrupulous  "hissing  brood  of  Annas"  it  was  carried  to 
lengths  hitherto  unheard-of.  The  requirement  of  priestly  inspection 
of  sacrificial  victims  gave  opportunity  for  an  odious  monopoly.  Annas 
himself  maintained  a  "Bazaar  of  Doves,"  where  priests  controlled  the 
sale  of  this  offering,  prescribed  in  the  law  as  that  of  the  poor. l  Even  the 
lower  orders  of  the  priesthood  were  shamelessly  mulcted,2  while  assas- 
sination and  intrigue  marked  the  lives  of  a  high-priestly  caste,  whose 
very  name  of  "Sadducee"  became  a  synonym  for  blank  irreligion  (Acts 
23:  8).  That  which  Jesus  had  resolved  to  do  after  the  scribes  had 
remained  masters  of  the  field  in  Galilee  when  he  attacked  the  usurpa- 
tions of  the  Synagogue,  was  to  advance  to  the  central  citadel,  and 
challenge  the  primal  usurpation  in  the  temple  itself. 

We  have  seen  that  he  did  not  conceal  from  himself  the  danger. 
Nationalistic  zealotry  was  on  the  alert — it  was  present  in  the  ranks  of 
his  own  disciples — to  seize  control  of  his  religious  protest  and  pervert 
it  into  a  messianistic  insurrection.  Such  perversion,  sure  to  occur  with 
the  fickle  crowd  unless  the  utmost  pains  were  taken  to  prevent  it, 
would  prove  inevitably  fatal,  and  would  only  play  into  the  hands  of  the 
unscrupulous  high-priests.  There  must  be  a  virtual  coup  d'etat,  an 
assertion  of  divine  right  in  the  temple  itself — and  yet  no  violence  to 
bring  about  the  intervention  of  Pilate.  That  Jesus  was  able  to  accom- 
plish this  prodigy  of  control,  even  for  a  few  days,  over  the  seething 
maelstrom  of  religious,  social,  and  patriotic  passion,  is  almost  miracu- 
lous. The  Purging  of  the  Temple  is  the  record  of  his  supreme  effort 
for  God  and  the  people.  The  fate  which  he  suffered  was  its  direct 
result. 

Ver.  15.  By  virtue  of  his  great  popular  support  (ver.  18)  Jesus  was 
able  to  accomplish  the  suppression  of  the  iniquitous  abuses  in  the 
temple  without  violence.     Jn.  2:  15  expresses  this  with  more  careful 


1  Stapfer,  Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  p.  62.        2  Josephus,  Anliq.  XX,  viii.  8. 


162 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       Id  16-20 


bought  in  the  temple,  and  overthrew  the 
tables  of  the  money-changers,  and  the 
seats  of  them  that  sold  the  doves; 

16  and  he  would  not  suffer  that  any  man 
should  carry  a  vessel  through  the  temple. 

17  And  he  taught,  and  said  unto 
them,  Is  it  not  written,  My  house  shall  be 
called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  the 
nations?                but  ye  have  made  it  a 

18  den  of  robbers.  And  the  chief  priests  and 
the  scribes  heard  it,  and  sought  how  they 
might  destroy  him:  for  they  feared  him, 
for  all  the  multitude  was  astonished  at 
his  teaching. 

19  And  *every  evening  2he  went  forth  out 
of  the  city. 

20  And  as  they  passed  by  in  the  morning, 
they  saw  the  fig  tree  withered  away  from 


1  Gr.  whenever  evening  came. 


2  Var.  they. 


(R) 
(Jer.  17:  27) 


Is.  56:  7;  Jer.  7: 
11 

R 


R  (P) 


Vers.30-35=Mt. 
31 : 19-33 

R(Q) 


description  of  the  means,  perhaps  on  genuine  tradition.  The  authori- 
ties, though  commanding  an  immense  force  of  disciplined  temple 
police  (cf.  Acts  4:  1),  were  partly  overawed,  partly  afraid  to  provoke 
violence.  The  trafficking  was  a  source  of  income  to  the  high-priestly  fam- 
ilies (see  above,  p.  160).  Tables  of  the  money  changers.  Still  a  familiar 
sight  to  tourists  in  Jerusalem.  Seats  (or  perches?)  of  them  that  sold 
the  doves.  This  sacrificial  victim  is  the  only  one  mentioned,  perhaps 
because  of  the  peculiarly  oppressive  abuse  of  the  family  of  Annas. 

Ver.  16.  An  addition  by  R  from  Jer.  17:  27  (cf.  the  parallels,  and  ver.  I 
17).  I 

Ver.  17.  The  passages  quoted  are  Is.  56:  7  and  Jer.  7: 11.  R  adds! 
from  the  context  of  the  former  "for  all  the  Gentiles"  (cf.  the  parallels). ' 
This  is  not  the  point  of  the  original,  which  contrasts  the  right  use  of  j 
the  temple  (for  prayer)  with  that  to  which  it  has  been  put  (extortion).    I 

Ver.  19.  Matthew  supplies  what  we  expect  from  ver.  11,  "to  Beth- 
any"; but  Lk.  21:37  has  a  different  representation,  supported  by 
Jn.  18:  2  and  seemingly  more  in  harmony  with  the  general  form  of 
this  statement.  Most  pilgrims  of  the  poorer  classes  bivouacked  in  the 
open  air  at  Passover. 

Vers.  20-25.  Sequel  to  the  Cursing  of  the  Fig  Tree.  This  agglutina- 
tion of  Q  material  seems  to  be  the  work  of  a  later  editorial  hand  than 
11:  12-14,  which  is  really  complete  in  itself.1  R's  interest  has  no  re- 
lation to  the  symbolism  for  the  sake  of  which  11:  12-14  is  introduced 
at  this  point  of  the  story  (Jerusalem's  visitation).  He  has  in  mind 
simply  a  lesson  for  wonder-workers.  The  lesson  is  similar  to  that  of 
the  Faith  series  (4:  35—5:  43;  9:  14-29),  and  in  the  Q  form  (Mt.  17: 
20  =  Lk.  17:  3-6)  actually  follows  (at  least  in  Matthew)  the  final  inci- 
dent of  that  series.  In  that  connection  the  saying  on  mountain-moving 

1  Even  the  language  ("suddenly"  in  Mt.  21:  19;  "your  Father  in  heaven,"  ver. 
25)  is  entirely  foreign  to  Mark. 


Ut  21-27 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 


163 


21  the  roots.  And  Peter  calling  to  remem- 
brance saith  unto  him,  Rabbi,  behold,  the 
fig  tree  which  thou  cursedst  is  withered 

22  away.  And  Jesus  answer- 
ing  saith  unto  them,  Have  faith  in  God. 

23  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall 
say  unto  this  mountain,  Be  thou  taken  up 
and  cast  into  the  sea;  and  shall  not  doubt 
in  his  heart,  but  shall  believe  that  what 
he  saith  cometh  to  pass;  he  shall  have  it. 

24  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  All 
things  whatsoever  ye  pray  and  ask  for, 
believe  that  ye  have  received  them,  and 

25  ye  shall  have  them.  And  whenso- 
ever ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have 
aught  against  any  one;  that  your  Father 
also  which  is  in  heaven  may  forgive  you 
your  trespasses.1 

27  And  they  come  again  to  Jerusalem:  and 
as  he  was  walking  in  the  temple,  there 
come  to   him  the   chief  priests,   and  the 


1  Var.  add  ver.  26,  But  if  ye  do  not  forgive,  neither  will  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  forgive  your  trespasses. 


(Mt.  17:  20=  Lk. 
17:6) 
(Q) 


(Mt.  6:  11,  14,  15 
=Lk.  11:4;  cf. 
Mt.  5:  23,  24; 
18:  23-35;  Lk. 
6:37) 


Vers.27-33=Mt. 
21 :  23-27= 
Lk.  20:1-8 

R(P) 


faith  (attested  by  Paul,  I  Cor.  13:  2)  is  a  precious  witness  of  the  sub- 
lime confidence  in  God  which  forms  the  most  distinctive  trait  of  Jesus' 
ministry.  As  against  the  hollow  mockery  of  prayers  offered  as  an  act 
of  righteousness,  or  even  "to  be  seen  of  men,"  without  any  real  belief 
in  their  efficacy,  Jesus  not  only  believes  that  God  is,  but  that  he  is  a 
rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him.  In  R's  setting  the  saying 
becomes  little  better  than  an  encouragement  to  fanaticism.  Prayer 
a  spell  which,  if  properly  applied,  can  override  the  divinely  appointed 
order  of  things. 

Ver.  24.  Apparently  another  saying,  if  not  merely  an  editorial  ap- 
plication of  ver.  23.  If  a  saying,  the  sense  may  have  been  as  in  Q 
(Mt.  7:  8  =  Lk.  11:  10;  cf.  Jas.  5:  16-18),  i.e.,  prayer  has  real  effect  upon 
the  event. 

Ver.  25.  Apropos  of  prayer,  R  attaches  a  lesson  of  Q  repeatedly  in- 
culcated in  Matthew  (see  marginal  references). 

Vers.  27-33.  Jesus  Challenged  for  His  Authority.  This  is  the  im- 
mediate sequel  to  the  Purging  of  the  Temple.  The  interjected  Sequel 
to  the  Cursing  of  the  Fig  Tree  interrupts  the  connection,  so  that  Luke 
fails  to  see  the  reference  of  "doest  thou  these  things"  (ver.  28),  and 
supplies  "as  he  was  teaching  the  people  in  the  temple  and  preaching  the 
gospel" — an  unobj  ectionable  occupation .  Jesus'  answer  to  the  challenge 
is  anything  but  enigmatical.  It  is  an  appeal  to  the  great  Sign  from  heav- 
en, the  coming  of  Elias  effecting  the  Great  Repentance.  This  was  "a 
greater  matter  than  Jonah,"  and  therefore  the  generation  which  ignored 
it  stood  condemned  in  the  presence  of  the  repentant  Ninevites.  In  the  Q 


164 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       11: 28-33 


28  scribes,  and  the  elders;  and  they  said  unto 
him,  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these 
things?  or  who  gave  thee  this  authority  to 

29  do  these  things?  And  Jesus  said  unto 
them,  I  will  ask  of  you  one  Question,  and 
answer  me,  and  I  will  tell  you  by  what 

30  authority  I  do  these  things.  The  baptism 
of  John,  was  it  from  heaven,  or  from  men? 

31  answer  me.  And  they  reasoned  with  them- 
selves, saying,  If  we  shall  say,  From 
heaven;  he   will  say,  Why  2[then]   did  ye 

32  not  believe  him?  3But  should  we  say, 
From  men — they  feared  the  people:  4for 
all    verily    held    John    to    be    a    prophet. 

33  And  they  answered  Jesus  and  say,  We 
know  not.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  them, 
Neither  tell  I  you  by  what  authority  I  do 
these  things. 

1  Gr.  word.  2  Var.  omit  [  ]. 

3  Or,  But  shall  we  say,  From  men? 

4  Or,  for  all  held  John  to  be  a  prophet  indeed. 


Cf.  Q,  Mt.  12:  38, 
39,  41  =  Lk.  11: 
29-32 


context  (Mt.  21 :28-32  =  Lk.  7:29,  30;15:  11-32)  this  application  becomes 
clearly  apparent.  Jesus  speaks  for  the  "people  of  the  land,"  protesting 
against  the  usurpations  of  the  hierocracy,  and  declares  himself  to  be 
continuing  the  divinely  commissioned  work  of  the  Baptist.  The  evan- 
gelist in  vers.  31,  32  makes  clear  to  his  readers  why  no  answer  was 
given.  But  in  the  nature  of  the  case  there  was  no  room  for  answer. 
The  meaning  was  too  obvious. 

This  paragraph  is  fundamentally  a  doublet  of  Q  on  the  Demand  of  a 
Sign  from  Heaven  (Mt.  12:  38,  39,  41  =Lk.  11:  29,  32).  In  Q  its  occa- 
sion is  the  Collision  with  the  Scribes  in  Galilee.  This  version  is  followed 
in  Mk.  7:  1-23;  8:  11-13  and  in  Jn.  6:  30-40.  Here  and  in  Jn.  2:  18-22 
its  occasion  is  the  Purging  of  the  Temple.  In  Q  (Mt.  12:  38,  39,  41  = 
Lk.  11:  29-32)  and  here  (ver.  30  and  parallels)  the  Sign  from  heaven 
is  the  Great  Repentance  of  the  Baptist-Elias.  In  both  versions  of 
John  (Jn.  2:  19-22;  6:32-51),  and  in  Matthew's  interpretation  of  Q 
(Mt.  12:  40;  cf.  Lk.  11:  30),  it  is  the  Resurrection. 

Ver.  27.  The  dramatic  setting  is,  of  course,  R's.  It  restores  the  scene 
of  ver.  18,  correctly  enumerating  the  elements  represented  in  the 
Sanhedrin. 

Ver.  28.  These  things — the  eviction  of  the  traffickers. 

Ver.  30.  The  baptism  of  John — the  movement  among  the  masses 
inaugurated  by  the  Baptist.  This  was  to  Jesus  the  great  "sign  of  the 
times."  From  it  had  come  the  impulse  to  his  own  ministry,  and  he 
deemed  the  religious  leaders  who  refused  to  take  it  as  "from  heaven" 
to  be  willfully  blind  (Q  (?),  Mt.  16:  1-4  =  Lk.  12:  54-56). 

Vers.  31,  32.  Mark  assumes  the  role  expected  of  the  ancient  his- 
torian, who  is  presumed  to  know  the  inner  reasonings  of  his  characters. 
He  presupposes  (ver.  31)  what  in  the  parallels  (Mt.  21 :  32 = Jn.  7:  29,  30) 
is  expressly  stated,  that  the  hierocracy  "did  not  believe"  John. 


12: 1-7 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 


165 


12  And  he  began  to  speak  unto  them  in 
parables.  A  man  planted  a  vineyard,  and 
set  a  hedge  about  it,  and  digged  a  pit  for 
the  winepress,  and  built  a  tower,  and  let 
it    out    to    husbandmen,    and    went    into 

2  another  country.  And  at  the  season  he 
sent  to  the  husbandmen  a  Servant,  that 
he  might  receive  from  the  husbandmen  of 

3  the  fruits  of  the  vineyard.  And  they  took 
him,  and  beat  him,  and  sent  him  away 

4  empty.  2[And  again  he  sent  unto  them 
another  Servant;  and  him  they  wounded 
in    the    head,    and    handled    shamefully.] 

5  And  he  sent  another;  and  him  they  killed: 
and  many  others ;  beating  some,  and  killing 

6  some.  He  had  yet  one,  a  beloved  son:  he 
sent  him  last  unto  them,  saying,  They  will 

7  reverence  my  son.  But  those  husbandmen 
said  among  themselves,  This  is  the  heir; 
come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inheritance 


1  Gr.  bondservant. 


2  Sinaitic  Syriac  omits  ver.  4. 


12:  l-12=Mt. 
21 :  33-46= 
Lk.  20:  9-19 

R  (Q) 

(Mt.  23:  34-39= 
Lk.  11:  49-51; 
13:  34,  35) 
Is.  5:  1-7 


12:  1-12.  "Parable"  of  the  Usurpers  in  the  Vineyard.  In  place  of  the 
Parable  of  the  Messianic  Feast  (Q,  Mt.  22:  l-14  =  Lk.  14:  15-24)  R 
inserts  an  allegory  based  on  Is.  5:  1-7  and  seemingly  suggested  by  the 
Q  saying  against  "Jerusalem  which  killeth  the  prophets"  (see  marg. 
ref.)-  The  reference  to  himself  as  the  "Beloved  Son"  in  comparison 
with  the  prophets  as  mere  "servants"  is  very  improbable  in  the  mouth 
of  Jesus,  to  say  nothing  of  the  public  announcement  of  his  fate  in  the 
face  of  his  murderers-to-be.  Moreover,  Jesus  does  not  employ  allegory, 
but  parable,  which  the  present  paragraph  is  not,  in  spite  of  ver.  1. 
The  same  disposition  to  allegorize  is  seen  in  Matthew's  addition  to  the 
parable  of  the  Messianic  Feast  (Mt.  22:  6,  7).  Jn.  15:  1-8  allegorizes 
the  same  Isaian  figure  as  Mark,  but  in  the  line  of  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ. 

Ver.  1.  "The  vineyard  of  Yahweh  of  hosts  is  the  house  of  Israel,  and 
the  men  of  Judah  his  pleasant  plantation:  and  he  looked  for  judgment, 
but  behold  oppression;  for  righteousness,  but  behold  a  cry."  The 
preparations  for  a  vineyard  are  the  customary  ones  in  the  East.  The 
presses  "dug"  (more  properly,  "hewn,"  Is.  5:2)  in  the  rock  are  every- 
where in  evidence,  as  well  as  the  watchtower  and  hedge  (more  properly, 
"fence").  The  letting  out  for  a  share  in  the  produce  is  also  a  well  known 
practice  of  landlords  of  the  time. 

Ver.  2.  The  feature  of  the  "servants"  beaten  and  wounded  is  added 
to  the  Isaian  parable  on  the  basis  of  Q  (see  marg.  ref.). 

Ver.  4.  For  wounded  in  the  head  render  "abused."  There  seems  to 
be  a  primitive  confusion  of  similar  words. 

Vers.  6-9.  R  does  not  hesitate  to  introduce  messianic  titles,  "Be- 
loved Son,"  "the  Heir,"  nor  to  refer  to  the  sending  as  "last,"  to  the  kill- 
ing, the  casting  out  of  the  vineyard  (in  both  parallels  this  is  placed 


166 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY        12:  8-12 


8  shall  be  ours.  And  they  took  him,  and 
killed  him,  and  cast  him  forth  out  of  the 

9  vineyard.  What  therefore  will  the  lord  of 
the  vineyard  do?  he  will  come  and  destroy 
the  husbandmen,  and  will  give  the  vine- 

10  yard  unto  others.  Have  ye  not  read  even 
this  scripture; 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 
The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the 
corner: 

11  This  was  from  the  Lord, 

And  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes? 

12  And  they  sought  to  lay 
hold  on  him;  and  they  feared  the  multi- 
tude; for  they  perceived  that  he 
spake  the  parable  against  them: 

and  they  left  him,  and  went  away. 


(Ps.  118:  22,  23; 
Acts  4:  11; 
I  Pt.  2:  7) 


(P) 
R 
(P) 


before  the  killing  to  correspond  with  the  situation  of  Golgotha,  Heb. 
13:  12),  even  to  the  consequent  fate  of  the  usurping  husbandmen,  and 
the  entrusting  of  the  vineyard  to  "others."  All  this  is  natural  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  believer  of  75  a.d.,  but  out  of  setting  in  29  a.d. 
Had  Jesus  employed  such  language  the  "needlessness  of  witness"  at 
his  "trial"  (14:  60-64)  would  have  been  much  more  apparent. 

Vers.  10,  11.  Mark  adds  a  current  "messianic  prophecy"  from  the 
psalm  already  quoted  in  11:9,  without  much  relation  to  the  allegory 
of  the  vineyard.  The  "husbandmen"  are  now  builders.  The  quota- 
tion in  I  Pt.  2:  7  is  independent  if  not  earlier.  In  Acts  4:11  there  is 
no  indication  of  dependence  on  Mark. 

Ver.  12  forms  the  conclusion  not  of  the  "parable"  merely,  but  of  the 
incident  of  the  Challenge  of  the  Sanhedrin  (11:  27-33),  and  thus  of  the 
subdivision  as  a  whole.  It  rests  clearly  on  excellent  tradition,  and 
justly  explains  the  temporary  holding  back  of  the  hierocracy.  Mes- 
sianic turbulence  might  easily  lead  to  curtailment  of  their  already 
greatly  restricted  powers.  Intrigue  was  more  congenial  than  violence 
to  "the  brood  of  Annas." 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  167 


TEACHING  IN  THE  TEMPLE 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  b.  12:  13-44.  After  the  repulse  of  the  delega- 
tion from  the  Sanhedrin  Jesus  was  approached  in  succession 
by  representatives  of  the  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees,  and  the 
scribes  on  the  questions  with  which  these  elements  of  Judaism 
are  respectively  concerned.  His  answers  were  an  end  of  con- 
troversy. When  these  were  silent  he  introduced  on  his  part 
the  question  of  the  nature  and  dignity  of  the  Christ,  following 
this  with  two  utterances  against  the  ostentation  of  the  scribes 
and  rich  supporters  of  the  temple.  The  colloquy  took  place  on 
this  wise: 

Vers.  13-17.  The  Pharisees'  question  was  concocted  in 
complicity  with  the  Herodians  to  entrap  Jesus.  Assuring  him 
of  their  confidence  that  no  fear  of  consequences  to  himself  would 
deter  him  from  a  candid  answer,  they  laid  before  him  the  ques- 
tion on  which  they  had  taken  issue  with  the  Zealots.  Could 
one  be  wholly  loyal  to  the  God  of  Israel  and  still  consent  to  pay 
the  tribute  exacted  by  those  who  were  usurpers  in  his  domain? 
Jesus  exposed  their  false  pretense  of  a  desire  for  enlightenment 
in  his  reply.  Calling  them  hypocrites,  he  held  up  the  current 
denarius  as  an  object  lesson.  The  stamp  of  the  emperor's 
effigy  upon  it  was  a  token  to  whom  were  due  the  good  order  and 
freedom  of  interchange  now  prevalent  throughout  the  empire. 
In  return  for  such  benefits  payment  was  just  and  right.  But, 
he  added,  there  is  something  due  also  for  benefits  that  were  not 
given  by  Casar.  Render  also  to  God  what  belongs  to  the  order 
of  his  kingdom. 

Vers.  18-27.  So  with  the  Sadducees,  who  do  not  admit  the 
doctrine  of  return  from  the  underworld.  These  asked  him  a 
question  designed  to  throw  ridicule  on  the  Pharisees'  concep- 
tion of  this  doctrine,  which  would  involve  a  confusion  of  marital 
relations  in  the  messianic  kingdom.  Referring  them  to  the 
fundamental  promise  of  redemption,  when  God  declared  to 
Moses  his  intention  to  fulfill  his  covenant  with  the  patriarchs 
regarding  their  seed,  and  rebuking  their  narrow  view  of  him 
whose  power  was  celebrated  in  the  Blessing  for  the  promise  of 
the  restoration  of  Israel  even  from  the  dust  of  death,  he  bade 
them  remember  that  the  God  who  made  this  promise  was  a  God 
of  life  and  the  living,  not  a  spectral  despot  over  the  shades  of 
the  underworld. 


168  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

Vers.  28-34.  Lastly  a  scribe  inquired  concerning  the  'para- 
mount commandment.  Jesus  summed  up  all  in  two.  Duty 
to  God  is  complete  in  the  inward  disposition  of  filial  devotion 
toward  him.  Duty  to  man  is  complete  in  the  inward  disposi- 
tion of  brotherly  service.  These  principles  he  again  clothed  in 
the  language  of  the  Jewish  scripture  and  ritual.  The  scribe, 
therefore,  seeing  that  he  had  proclaimed  a  higher  law  than  the 
ceremonial  of  Mosaism,  commended  his  saying,  and  Jesus' in 
turn  declared  him  who  was  thus  ready  to  rise  above  the  religion 
of  burnt  offering  and  sacrifice  to  be  not  far  from  the  coming 
kingdom.    None  after  this  durst  question  him  further. 

Vers.  35-37.  Jesus  himself,  however,  showed  before  all  the 
people  the  blindness  of  their  scribes  as  to  the  Christ,  whom  they 
take  to  be  a  descendant  of  David,  coming  to  sit  upon  David's 
throne  in  Jerusalem.  For  David  himself,  under  inspiration 
of  God,  spoke  of  him  as  "My  Lord"  and  as  one  who  should  be 
exalted  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God  on  his  throne  in  heaven. 
This  psalm  Jesus  held  before  them,  but  they  could  not  answer. 

Vers.  38-40.  He  also  warned  the  people  of  the  ostentation 
and  hypocrisy  of  the  scribes,  declaring  that  for  their  greater 
pretense  their  sentence  should  be  heavier. 

Vers.  41-44.  As  against  the  rich,  who  were  casting  gifts 
into  the  temple  treasury,  he  held  up  as  an  example  of  sacrifice 
acceptable  to  God  the  gift  of  one  poor  widow,  who  of  her  poverty 
cast  in  two  mites,  not  even  retaining  one  for  her  living. 


SUBDIVISION  B.    12:  J3-44  —  CRITICISM 

The  series  of  disputes  now  subjoined,  in  which  successively  the  Phari- 
see, the  Sadducee,  and  the  scribe  enter  into  debate  with  Jesus  on  the 
typical  moot  points  of  these  three  elements  of  current  Judaism,  is  more 
characteristic  of  the  period  of  theological  controversy  between  Church 
and  Synagogue  than  of  the  assumed  situation.  This  becomes  only  the 
more  evident  through  the  addition  of  a  fourth  question  wherein  Jesus 
takes  the  aggressive  as  champion  of  the  central  tenet  of  the  Church, 
of  course  without  a  reply. '  The  real  course  of  the  story  is  resumed  in 
c.  14,  showing  that  these  dialogues,  with  the  denunciatory  monologue 
which  follows  in  c.  13  predicting  the  overthrow  of  the  temple,  are  in- 
troduced from  apologetic  motives  rather  than  to  exhibit  the  course 
of  events.  In  reality  while  the  first  debate2  is  well  chosen  to  fit  the 
situation,  one  can  hardly  imagine  the  successive  formal  debates  taking 
place  at  this  time  between  Jesus  and  the  authorities  whom  he  has  just 
mortally  affronted.  On  the  contrary,  these  are  successive  definitions 
of  Christian  doctrine  against  Pharisaism,  Sadducaism,  and  Scribism, 
the  last  two  based  respectively  on  the  Shemoneh  Esreh  and  the  Shemd 
of  the  Jewish  prayer  book;  and  while  undoubtedly  reflecting  Jesus' 

1  12:  35-37.  *  12:  13-17. 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  169 

genuine  teaching,  are  quite  as  likely  to  belong  to  the  Galilean  period 
along  with  the  questions  about  Divorce  and  the  observance  of  Fasts 
and  Sabbaths.1  In  the  case  of  Jesus'  question  as  to  the  Lordship  of 
the  Christ  we  have  one  of  the  "Messianic  prophecies"  already  em- 
ployed by  Paul  in  I  Cor.  15:  25,  thereafter  elaborately  developed  by 
the  author  of  Hebrews,  and  finally  appealed  to  by  Peter  in  a  passage 
which  shows  no  sign  of  dependence  on  Mark  in  Acts  2:  34,  35.    The 

Eassage  is  in  reality  a  proof-text  of  the  Ascension  of  Christ  to  the  right 
and  of  God,  and  is  much  more  likely  to  stand  in  its  historical  context 
in  Acts  2:  34,  35  than  here,  where  the  question  of  the  ascension  and 
sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  not  raised.  It  surely  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  historically  probable  that  Jesus  undertook  to  debate  with 
his  opponents  in  the  temple  the  question  in  what  sense  Christ  is  to  be 
understood  as  the  Son  of  David (!),  however  interesting  to  us  to  observe 
how  a  follower  of  Paul  would  justify  his  own  Christology  by  the  use 
of  Ps.  110:  1. 


i  10:  1-10;  2:  23—3:  6. 


170  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       12s  13-15 


13  A  ND  they  send  unto  him  certain  of  the 
JLJL     Pharisees  and  of  the  Herodians,  that 

14  they  might  catch  him  in  talk.  And 
^hen  they  were  come,  they  say  unto  him, 
2Master,  we  know  that  thou  art  true,  and 
carest  not  for  any  one:  for  thou  regardest 
not  the  person  of  men,  but  of  a  truth  teach- 
est  the  way  of  God:  Is  it  lawful  to  give 
tribute  unto  Caesar,  or  not?    Shall  we  give, 

15  or  shall  we  not  give?  But  he,  knowing 
their  hypocrisy,  said  unto  them,  Why 
tempt  ye  me?  bring   me  a  3penny,  that  I 

1  /3  var.  the  Pharisees  asked  him.  2  Or,  Teacher. 

3  Gr.  denarius,  a  shilling. 


Vers.l3-17=Mt. 
23:15-33= 
Lk.  30:30-36 

(X) 


Vers.  13-17.  The  Question  of  the  Pharisees.  The  Pharisees'  question 
is  that  which  underlies  the  origin  of  the  sect,  who  withdrew  their  sup- 
port from  the  Maccabean  priest-kings  after  religious  liberty  had  been 
attained  and  further  war  served  only  the  self-aggrandizement  of  the 
dynasty.  Jesus  himself  and  the  Church  afterward  on  all  political 
questions  were  strictly  Pharisean,  i.e.,  they  confined  their  efforts  to 
the  practise  of  "righteousness,"  leaving  to  God  the  establishment  of 
the  messianic  kingdom  in  his  own  time  and  his  own  way.  The  Zealots, 
on  the  contrary,  had  made  it  their  motto  since  the  census  of  Quirinius 
took  away  the  last  remnant  of  Judsean  independence,  to  acknowledge 
no  king  but  Jehovah,  no  tribute  but  to  the  temple,  no  friend  but  the 
Zealot.  If  we  accept  the  representation  of  ver.  13  that  the  ancient 
bone  of  contention,  whether  or  not  it  "defiled  the  land"  to  pay  the 
census,  was  artfully  presented  to  Jesus  at  this  time,  its  subtlety  will 
have  lain  not  in  the  difficulty  of  answering  (for  he  was  sure  to  agree 
with  the  Pharisees  that  "they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  by  the 
sword"),  but  in  the  reaction  of  unpopularity  his  answer  would  be  apt 
to  produce  among  his  Galilean  supporters,  with  whom  the  memory 
of  "Judas  the  Galilean"  would  still  be  fresh  and  fragrant.  This  man, 
"in  the  days  of  the  Census,"  led  a  heroic  but  fruitless  revolt  against 
Roman  control.  If  Jesus  still  had  any  Zealot  support  it  certainly  must 
have  fallen  away  in  disgust  at  his  "Render  unto  Csesar  the  things  which 
are  Caesar's." 

Ver.  13.  Pharisees  and  Herodians.  The  "Herodians"  are  doubtless 
an  addition  of  R  (cf.  3:6;  8:  15).  They  play  no  part  in  any  other 
Gospel,  and  none  in  this  save  in  the  plots  against  Jesus'  life.  The 
western  text  in  ver.  14  correctly  presents  this  as  a  question  of  "the 
Pharisees"  (see  var.). 

Ver.  14.  Is  it  lawful.  The  Jerusalem  authorities,  when  incorporation 
into  the  Roman  province  of  Syria  was  first  threatened,  had  decreed 
that  payment  of  the  Roman  tax  was  disloyal  to  Yahweh,  the  rightful 
owner,  and  hence  unlawful,  "defiling  the  land."  The  approach  of 
Roman  legions  enabled  them  to  discover  a  more  accommodating  exe- 
gesis soon  after.    But  the  Galileans  bravely  resisted. 

Ver.  15.  Knowing  their  hypocrisy.  The  complimentary  address,  in- 
timating that  Jesus  will  not  withhold  his  real  conviction  from  fear  of 
consequences,  is  transparently  artful.  Counsel  against  payment  would 
be  construed  by  Pilate  as  insurrection. 


I2j  16,  17  THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  171 


16  may  see  it.  And  they  brought  it.  And  he 
saith  unto  them,  Whose  is  this  image  and 
superscription?    And  they  said  unto  him, 

17  Caesar's.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Render 
unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's, 
and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's. 
And  they  marvelled  greatly  at  him. 


Ver.  16.  Bring  me  a  penny  (Gr.,  denarius,  a  shilling).  Not  because  the 
appearance  of  the  coin  was  unfamiliar,  but  as  an  object  lesson.  Paul, 
in  similar  connection,  had  both  bidden  converts  in  Rome,  "Render  to 
all  their  due,  tribute  to  whom  tribute,  custom  to  whom  custom,"  and 
also,  as  the  higher  obligation  of  rational  worship,  "Render  to  God  your 
own  bodies,  a  living  sacrifice"  (Rom.  13:  7;  12: 1).  If  in  the  same 
immediate  context  (Rom.  13:8)  we  find  a  parallel  to  vers.  28-34  it 
may  not  be  unreasonable  to  consider  that  Jesus'  teaching  was  present 
to  Paul's  mind  also,  and  that  he  interpreted  it  as  going  beyond  the 
mere  negative  attitude  of  Pharisaism,  and  adding  to  the  obligation  of 
the  good  citizen  of  the  Empire  the  higher  obligation  of  the  citizen  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  For  God's  image  and  superscription  were  stamped 
upon  the  human  frame  itself.  Appreciation  of  the  value  of  Roman 
government  is  no  rarity  in  early  Christian  writings,  and  even  appears 
in  the  Talmud.  The  separation  of  religious  from  civil  obligation  was 
a  vital  point  for  the  early  Church.  Direction  to  pay  "what  is  Caesar's" 
of  course  included  not  merely  the  "census"  (so  ver.  14  for  "tribute"), 
but  every  other  requirement  of  the  civil  governor  not  in  conflict  with 
the  requirement  of  God. 

Vers.  18-27.  The  Question  of  the  Sadducees.  The  second  debate  is 
more  manifestly  scholastic.  One  element  of  its  value  to  Mark  is  to 
differentiate  the  more  refined  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  which  Chris- 
tianity, since  Paul,  presented  to  the  Hellenic  world,  from  the  crassly 
materialistic  view  of  current  Judaism.  Fundamentally,  like  the  pre- 
ceding, it  does  not  go  beyond  what  any  devout  Pharisee  would  ap- 
prove. An  element  for  our  appreciation  of  the  reasoning  is  lacking 
until  the  two  most  ancient  and  familiar  prayers  of  the  Jewish  prayer 
book  are  placed  alongside  the  passage  of  "scripture."  The  first  two 
of  the  so-called  Shemoneh  Esreh  ("Eighteen  Blessings"),  undoubtedly 
already  current,  relate  to  the  "redemption"  of  Israel  in  fulfillment  of 
the  covenant  of  God  with  "Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob."  The  second, 
which  some  think  was  called  from  its  opening  words  "the  Power  of 
God,"  is  a  thanksgiving  for  the  restoration  of  Israel  from  the  grave, 
under  the  figure  of  Ezek.  37:  1-14,  as  follows:  "Thou  art  mighty  for- 
ever, O  Lord;  thou  restorest  life  to  the  dead,  Thou  art  mighty  to  save; 
who  sustainest  the  living  with  beneficence,  quickenest  the  dead  with 
great  mercy,  supporting  the  fallen  and  healing  the  sick,  and  setting  at 
liberty  them  that  are  bound,  and  upholding  thy  faithfulness  to  those 
that  sleep  in  the  dust.  Who  is  like  to  thee,  Lord,  the  Almighty;  or 
who  can  be  compared  to  thee,  O  King,  who  killest  and  makest  alive 
again,  and  causest  help  to  spring  forth?  And  faithful  art  thou  to 
quicken  the  dead.  Blessed  art  thou,  O  Lord,  who  restorest  the  dead." 
The  passage  "concerning  the  Bush"  is  interpreted  in  the  light  of  this 
thanksgiving  to  the  Restorer  of  life  to  the  dead.  God,  in  sending 
Moses  to  deliver  Israel  from  its  bondage,  was  "upholding  his  faithful- 
ness" to  the  patriarchs  who  "slept  in  the  dust."  It  is  true  that  only 
national  survival  is  here  implied,  as  indeed  the  resurrection  belief  of 


172 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       12: 18-25 


18  And  there  come  unto  him  Sadducees, 
which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection; 

19  and  they  asked  him,  saying,  faster,  Moses 
wrote  unto  us,  If  a  man's  brother  die,  and 
leave  a  wife  behind  him,  and  leave  no  child, 
that  his  brother  should  take  his  wife,  and 

20  raise  up  seed  unto  his  brother.  There  were 
seven  brethren:  and  the  first  took  a  wife, 

21  and  dying  left  no  seed;  and  the  second  took 
her,  and  died,  leaving  no  seed  behind  him; 

22  and  the  third  likewise:  and  the  seven  left 
no  seed.    Last  of  all  the  woman  also  died. 

23  In  the  resurrection  whose  wife  shall  she 
be  of  them?  for  the  seven  had  her  to  wife. 

24  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Is  it  not  for  this  cause 
that  ye  err,  that  ye  know  not  the  scriptures, 

25  nor  the  power  of  God?  For  when  they  shall 
rise  from  the  dead,  they  neither  marry,  nor 
are  given  in  marriage;  but  are  as  angels  in 

1  Or,  Teacher. 


Vers.l8-37=Mt. 
32:23-33= 
Lk.  20:27-38 

(X) 
Dt.  25:  5 


Israel  is  distinguished  in  just  this  respect  from  the  world-wide  popular 
doctrine  of  underworld  "shades"  of  the  dead  and  philosophic  theories 
of  soul-immortality.  Israel's  hope  is  from  the  outset  and  fundamen- 
tally national.  The  shades  come  back  to  earth  from  Sheol  to  share  in 
bodily  form  in  the  reign  of  Messiah,  the  kingdom  of  God.  Now  were 
Yahweh,  like  Pluto  or  Hades,  "a  god  of  the  dead,"  this  would  not  be 
conceivable.  He  would  wield  his  shadowy  empire  in  the  underworld. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Creator  and  Father  in  heaven  is  essentially  a 
God  of  the  living.  His  people,  then,  the  posterity  of  the  patriarchs  to 
whom  the  promise  of  redemption  was  made,  are  not  to  be  left  in  the 
"bondage"  of  death,  but  delivered,  as  in  the  day  of  Moses.  The  former 
deliverance  was  a  mere  symbol  and  foretaste  of  the  perfect  redemption, 
when  in  the  kingdom  "God  himself  shall  be  with  them  and  be  their 
God."  "The  scriptures"  and  "the  power  of  God"  are  thus  combined, 
as  in  Eph.  1:  19 — 2:  6  and  primitive  Christian  thought  in  general. 

Ver.  18.  Sadducees  (they),  which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection. 
The  Sadducee  is  defined  as  in  Acts  23 :  8.  In  reality  the  Sadducees  (Gr., 
"descendants  of  the  Zadokite  priestly  nobility")  had  lost  all  political 
significance  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  (70  a.d.). 
They  are  remembered  merely  as  opponents  of  Pharisaism,  which  from 
the  other-worldly  form  of  its  messianic  hope  had  developed  the  resur- 
rection doctrine.    The  Sadducees  had  been  the  beati  possidentes. 

Vers.  19-23.  An  ancient  sneer  at  the  Pharisaic  doctrine.  The  law 
referred  to  is  the  Semitic  principle  of  "levirate"  (Dt.  25:  5).  On  the 
supposition  of  a  return  to  bodily  life  in  the  Kingdom,  social,  especially 
conjugal,  relations  will  be  hopelessly  confused.  Pharisaism  had  long 
since  met  this  objection  with  the  further  doctrine  of  a  second  resur- 
rection to  superhuman  conditions.1 

Ver.  25.  As  angels  in  heaven.     Apocalyptic  doctrine2  declared  that 


1 II  Esdr.  7:  28. 


2  Eth.  Enoch,  xv.  7. 


12:26-28  THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  173 


26  heaven.  But  as  touching  the  dead,  that 
they  are  raised;  have  ye  not  read  in  the 
book  of  Moses,  in  (the  place  concerning)  the 
Bush,  how  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I 

(am)  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God 

27  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob?  He  is 
not  Hhe  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living: 
ye  do  greatly  err. 

28  And  one  of  the  scribes  came,  and  heard 
them  questioning  together,  and  knowing 
that  he  had  answered  them  well,  asked 

1  Gr.  a  God. 


Vers.28-34=Mt. 
22:34^10,46 
=  L,k.  20:39, 
40;  10:35-28 

(X) 


"God  created  no  wives  for  the  angels."  Jesus  declares  that  apprecia- 
tion of  the  "power  of  God"  would  have  shown  that  the  resurrection  body 
may  well  be  of  other  than  merely  human  form.  This  verse  is  hardly  in 
line  with  Jesus'  ordinary  reserve  on  questions  of  the  future  state,  and  is 
manifestly  somewhat  outside  the  course  of  argument.  In  ver.  26  "the 
power  of  God"  is  illustrated  in  the  redemption,  not  the  resources  of  crea- 
tive omnipotence.    Is  ver.  25  perhaps  the  addition  of  some  Paulinist? 

Ver.  26.  Not  the  God  of  the  dead  (see  above,  p.  172).  Luke  adds  the 
unsatisfactory  explanation  from  IV  Mace.  7:  19;  16:  25  (the  patriarchs 
"are  living  unto  God")  that  "all  live  unto  him"  (cf.  Acts  17:  28;  Rom. 
6:  11;  14:  8).  Yahweh  is  essentially  a  divinity  of  the  upper  world  of 
life  and  light  (Ps.  88:  3-5,  10-12). 

Vers.  28-34.  The  Question  of  the  Scribe.  The  sole  mission  of  the 
scribe  as  such  is  to  so  interpret  and  apply  the  Law  of  Moses  that  the 
will  of  God  may  be  perfectly  done.  Given  a  community,  however  small, 
among  whom  this  condition  is  fulfilled  and  there  is  "made  ready  for 
the  Lord  a  people  prepared  for  him."  Hence  the  caste  of  "Neighbors" 
(chaberim),  holding  itself  aloof  from  the  people  of  the  land  (am  ha- 
aretz) .  The  present  anecdote  voices  a  protest  against  the  unbearable 
yoke  imposed  under  this  theory  of  the  Kingdom.  It  had  been  set  forth 
in  the  saying  of  the  great  liberal  Hillel  (60  B.C. — 20  a.d.),  "Do  not  to 
another  what  thou  wouldest  not  that  he  should  do  unto  thee;  this  is 
the  whole  law,  the  rest  is  commentary."  It  employs  for  its  purpose  a 
datum  of  popular  religion  even  more  widespread  than  the  Shemoneh 
Esreh,  the  creed  or  Shemd,  beginning  with  Dt.  6:  4,  and  combines  with 
it  Lev.  19:  18,  already  so  employed  by  Paul  (Gal.  5:  14;  Rom.  13:  8-10). 
Mark's  attitude  toward  "fulfillment  of  the  commandments"  unac- 
companied by  surrender  to  the  way  of  the  cross  has  been  seen  in  10:  17- 
22.  Here  his  "new  commandment,"  displacing  what  "they  of  old  time" 
had  said,  comes  to  clear  enunciation.  Luke,  who  combines  this  with  the 
parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  produces  in  the  process  (Lk.  10:  25-28) 
a  perversion  of  the  Pauline  anti-legalism  of  Mark  exactly  equivalent  to 
that  of  Matthew  in  the  latter 's  parallel  to  Mk.  10:  17-31.  Nevertheless 
he  has  preserved  in  the  parable  a  priceless  example  of  Jesus'  illustra- 
tion of  the  eternal  and  spiritual  law  which,  written  in  the  heart  of  a 
mere  Samaritan,  exalts  him  above  Levite  or  priest.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  both  parallels  cancel  vers.  32-34,  which  contain  a  comparison 
disparaging  to  Mosaism,  both  represent  the  scribe  as  "tempting  him," 
and  both  transform  the  conditions  which  in  Mark  bring  near  to  the  king- 
dom into  the  actual  and  only  conditions  of  "inheriting  eternal  life." 


174 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      12:29-34 


him,  What  commandment  is  the  first  of 

29  all?  Jesus  answered,  The  first  is,  Hear,  O 
Israel;    xThe  Lord  our  God,  the  Lord  is 

30  one:  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  2with  all  thy  heart,  and  2with  all  thy 
soul,  and  2with   all  thy   mind,  and  2with 

31  all  thy  strength.  The  second  is  this,  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  There 
is  none  other  commandment  greater  than 

32  these.  And  the  scribe  said  unto  him,  Of  a 
truth,  3Master,  thou  hast  well  said  that  he 
is  one;  and  there  is  none  other  but  he: 

33  and  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart,  and 
with  all  the  understanding,  and  with  all 
the  strength,  and  to  love  his  neighbour  as 
himself,  is  much  more  than  all  whole  burnt 

34  offerings  and  sacrifices.  And  when  Jesus 
saw  that  he  answered  discreetly,  he  said 
unto  him,  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  king- 
dom of  God.  And  no  man  after  that  durst 
ask  him  any  question. 


1  Or,  The  Lord  is  our  God  ;  the  Lord  is  one. 
3  Or,  Teacher. 


2  Gr.  front. 


Dt.  6:  4,  5 


Lev.  19:  18 


Dt.  4:  35 


Ver.  28.  First  of  all.  The  principle  of  greater  and  lesser  matters  of 
the  law  was  admitted  (Q,  Mt.  23:  23=  Lk.  11:  42),  and  was  applied  in 
cases  of  conflicting  requirement.     The  scribe  seeks  a  paramount  law. 

Ver.  29.  The  parallels  omit  these  opening  clauses  of  the  Shemd. 

Ver.  30.  Thou  shalt  love.  "Have  faith"  is  the  distinctive  teaching 
of  Jesus  as  to  man's  proper  relation  to  God.  "Love"  is  the  word  here 
dictated  by  the  parallel  in  ver.  31  and  the  quotation  from  Dt.  6:  4.  It 
cannot  even  in  ver.  31  refer  to  an  emotion  or  sentiment,  but  means 
the  serviceable  disposition.  Here  it  is  used  as  a  synonym  for  that 
filial  attitude  which  identifies  the  will  of  the  Father  in  heaven  with 
the  summum  bonum,  the  simple  trust,  or  "faith  in  God,"  which  is 
Jesus'  distinctive  trait. 

Ver.  31.  There  is  none  other  greater.  The  parallels  cancel.  Mat- 
thew (22:  40)  substitutes  the  statement  that  the  requirements  of  the 
law  are  to  be  interpreted  by  reference  to  these. 

Vers.  32-34.  Such  liberalism  was  by  no  means  rare  among  Jews  of 
the  time.  In  Alexandria  the  ceremonial  law  was  being  refined  into 
mere  moral  allegory.1  Essenes,  by  the  opposite  road  of  extreme 
punctiliousness,  were  arriving  at  the  same  result.  They  no  longer 
recognized  the  validity  of  the  temple  ceremonial.  Our  evangelist  and 
the  fourth  (in  the  character  of  Nicodemus)  show  a  friendlier  attitude 
than  Matthew  and  Luke  to  liberal  Judaism.  And  no  man  after  that 
durst  ask.  Manifestly  a  colophon  to  the  section.  Matthew,  accord- 
ingly, gives  it  its  appropriate  place  after  vers.  35-37.  Its  occurrence 
here  suggests  that  the  latter  verses  may  be  a  later  attachment. 

1  Ep.  of  Aristeas,  128-171,  ca.  90  b.c. 


12:35-38 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 


175 


35 


36 


And  Jesus  answered  and  said,  as  he 
taught  in  the  temple,  How  say  the  scribes 
that  the  Christ  is  the  son  of  David?  David 
himself  said  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 

The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 

Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 

Till  I  'make  thine  enemies  the  footstool 
of  thy  feet. 

37  David  himself  calleth  him  Lord;  and  whence 
is  he  his  son? 

And  2the   common   people 

38  heard  him  gladly.     And  in  his  teaching  he 


1  Var.  put  .  .  .  underneath  thy  feel. 

2  Or,  the  great  multitude. 


Vers.  35-37a= 
Mt.  32:41-45 
=Lk.  30:41- 
44 

R  (X) 

(Acts  2:  34-36; 

Ps.  110:  1) 


Vers.  376-40= 
Lk.  30:  46-^7 

R  (Q) 
(Mt.  23:  1-7= 
Lk.  11:43-46) 


Vers.  35-37.  The  Question  of  Christ.  In  Peter's  speech  at  Pentecost 
the  exaltation  of  Jesus  to  the  "throne  of  glory"  is  inferred  from  ex- 
perience and  from  scripture.  The  experience  is  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit;  the  principal  scripture  is  the  present  passage  from  Ps.  110:  1, 
quoted  without  any  suggestion  of  previous  use  by  Jesus  (Acts  2:  34- 
36).  The  same  two  arguments  are  employed  in  Eph.  4:  4-10,  though 
here  the  scripture  employed  is  Ps.  68:  19.  It  cannot  be  made  to  appear 
probable  that  Jesus  publicly  discussed  the  question  of  the  nature  of 
the  Lordship  of  Christ,  interpreting  the  Septuagint  passage  quoted  by 
Paul  (I  Cor.  15:  25)  in  a  sense  opposed  to  Jewish  conceptions  of  Mes- 
siahhood.  Moreover,  the  supplementary  way  in  which  this  scripture 
proof  is  attached  to  the  series  of  scholastic  disputes  confirms  this 
judgment.  The  quotation  has,  in  fact,  much  less  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Lordship  of  the  Christ,  than  of  his  ascension  "to  the  right 
hand  of  God."  The  psalm  quoted  is  an  acrostic,  containing  in  its 
initial  letters  the  name  of  Simon  the  Maccabee,  made  "prince  and  high- 
priest  forever,"  though  neither  a  descendant  of  David  nor  of  Zadok,  by 
popular  decree  in  141  b  c.  (I  Mace.  14:  25-49).  It  is  a  coronation  ode 
by  some  Sadducean(?)  supporter,  who  greets  the  great  deliverer  with 
messianic  ascriptions.  Yahweh,  his  helper,  bids  "my  Lord"  (i.e.,  Simon) 
behold  from  a  seat  beside  Him  on  the  heavenly  throne  how  the  promised 
dominion  of  Israel  is  to  be  accomplished.  For  the  application  to  the 
case  of  Jesus,  see  Acts  2:  33;  3:  21;  Heb.  10:  12,  13.  In  Hebrews  the 
element  of  the  perpetual  high-priesthood — like  Melchizedek's  "with- 
out a  genealogy" — is  developed  alongside  of  the  perpetual  royal 
succession.  In  Rom.  1 :  3,  4  and  Hebrews  the  question  of  Davidic 
descent  is  ignored.  Here  it  is  definitely  declared  immaterial.  The 
pretension — so  this  evangelist  holds — mistakes  the  nature  of  Mes- 
siahship. 

Ver.  37.  David  himself.  To  Mark  at  least,  and  apparently  to  the 
writer  of  Acts  2:  34,  the  title  "A  Psalm  of  David"  in  the  Psalter  was 
sufficient  evidence  of  authorship.  The  age  did  not  vex  itself  with 
questions  of  authorship,  but  we  may  question  whether  earlier  Chris- 
tian employers  of  this  really  noble  messianic  psalm,  such  as  Paul  or  the 
writer  of  Hebrews,  did  not  enter  too  deeply  into  its  spirit  to  argue 
from  it  merely  that  "my  Lord"  is  a  title  the  founder  of  a  dynasty 
could  not  use  of  a  descendant. 


176  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      12: 39-41 


said,  Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  desire  to 
walk  in  long  robes,  and  (to  have)  salutations 

39  in  the  marketplaces,  and  chief  seats  in  the 

40  synagogues,  and  chief  places  at  feasts :  they 
which  devour  widows'1  houses,  2and  for  a 
pretence  make  long  prayers;  these  shall  re- 
ceive greater  condemnation. 

41  And  he  sat  down  over 
against  the  treasury,  and  beheld  how  the 
multitude  cast  3money  into  the  treasury: 
and  many  that  were  rich  cast  in  much. 

1  0  var.  add  and  orphans. 

2  Or,  even  while  for  a  pretence  they  make.  3  Gr.  brass. 


Vers.  41-44= 
Lk.  21 : 1-4 

(X) 


Vers.  38-40.  Denunciation  of  the  Scribes.  After  the  silencing  of  all 
questioners,  R  attaches  two  disconnected  fragments.  The  former 
(vers.  376-40)  is  the  merest  reminiscence  of  the  great  denunciatory 
discourse  of  Q,  Mt.  23:  4-36  =  Lk.  11:  39-52.  The  latter  has  no  parallel 
in  Matthew,  and  in  all  its  intrinsic  characteristics  resembles  the  "special 
source"  of  Luke.  Its  omission  by  Matthew  cannot  be  explained  as 
intentional  cancellation,  and  its  connection  is  so  purely  artificial  in 
Mark  (ver.  40,  the  scribes  devour  "widows'  houses"),  interrupting  the 
connection  of  the  Denunciation  (vers.  38-40)  with  the  Warning  of 
Doom  (c.  13),  that  we  must  regard  it  as  a  late  addition,  either  from 
Luke  or  from  the  latter's  "special  source." 

Vers.  38,  39.  The  description  of  the  scribes  occupies  itself  with  ex- 
ternals. Their  hypocritical  casuistry  and  greed  for  the  Korban  had 
been  referred  to  in  7:  8-13,  but  the  denunciation  there  is  a  general 
arraignment  of  "the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews."  Here  the  rabbi's 
long  robe  and  his  claims  to  special  honors  in  home,  street,  and  syna- 
gogue, his  dependence  for  support  on  bequests  which  should  have 
gone  to  provide  for  the  family  of  the  testator,  and  his  hypocritical 
"long  prayers"  are  the  occasion  of  the  specially  grievous  judgment 
that  overhangs  the  nation  as  a  whole.  R  does  not  touch  upon  the 
real  burden  of  the  indictment  as  we  have  it  in  Q.  This  was  the  scribes' 
usurpation  of  "the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  the  power  of 
"binding  and  loosing,"  by  which  a  "share  in  the  world  to  come"  was 
conditioned  on  assumption  of  their  yoke.  He  sees  with  the  eyes  of  an 
outsider.  Widows'  houses,  i.e.,  estates.  Legacies  to  support  rabbinic 
teaching. 

Vers.  41-44.  The  "Widow's  Mites.  So  far  as  this  story  has  appro- 
priateness here  it  lies  in  the  contrast  with  the  avaricious  scribes  (ver. 
40).  In  reality  it  seems  to  have  more  affinity  with  the  "special  source" 
of  Luke,  and  fails  to  appear  in  Matthew.  The  familiarity  of  the  nar- 
rator with  the  widow's  private  circumstances  is  not  due  to  super- 
natural knowledge,  but  characterizes  ancient  historians  generally. 
What  the  reader  needs  to  know  to  make  the  bearing  of  the  story  clear, 
the  narrator  undertakes  to  tell  (cf.  11:  31). 

Ver.  41.  The  treasury.  In  the  first  quadrangle  of  the  temple  enclos- 
ure, accessible  to  women,  were  placed  thirteen  trumpet-shaped  re- 
ceptacles for  offerings.  Jesus  sits  opposite,  commenting  on  the 
appearance  of  the  givers. 


12: 42-44 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 


177 


42  And  there  came  xa  poor  widow,  and  she 
cast  in  two  mites,  which  make  a  farthing. 

43  And  he  called  unto  him  his  disciples,  and 
said  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
This  poor  widow  cast  in  more  than  all  they 

44  which  are  casting  into  the  treasury:  for 
they  all  did  cast  in  of  their  superfluity ;  but 
she  of  her  want  did  cast  in  all  that  she  had, 
(even)  all  her  living. 

1  Gr.  one. 


Ver.  42.  One  poor  widow  (see  margin).  Against  "many"  rich  (ver. 
41).  The  numeral  would  have  been  better  placed  in  ver.  43.  Two 
mites.  Having  two  coins  she  might  have  retained  one.  A  farthing 
(Gr.,  "quadrans").  The  valuation  in  Roman  money  is  scarcely  in 
itself  an  indication  of  Roman  origin  for  this  Gospel;  for  the  quadrans 
doubtless  circulated  in  Syria  also.  But  when  we  add  that  the  readers 
are  not  expected  to  know  the  value  of  the  lepton  ("mite"),  the  inference 
becomes  cogent. 


178  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


WARNING  OF  IMPENDING  JUDGMENT 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  c.  C.  13.  Jesus  also  predicted  to  his  disciples 
the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and  warned  them  not  to  be  misled 
by  false  prophecies  of  his  second  coming,  but  foretold  the  perse- 
cution they  should  suffer,  and  the  world-wide  proclamation  of 
the  gospel.  He  also  foretold  the  great  tribulation  of  those  in 
Judcea,  after  which  the  signs  of  the  Son  of  man  would  appear 
in  heaven.  He  bade  them  therefore  watch  for  his  coming,  which 
should  surely  be  within  their  own  generation,  but  at  an  hour 
that  no  man  can  know.  This  revelation  he  gave  them  that  they 
might  not  be  deluded  by  false  prognosticators. 

Vers.  1-4.  The  prediction  of  the  overthrow  of  the  temple 
was  made  as  they  were  going  forth,  when  the  disciples  called 
Jesus'  attention  to  its  massive  structure.  In  private  thereafter 
the  four  disciples  whom  he  had  first  called  asked  him  when  this 
should  be,  and  in  what  relation  the  temple  overthrow  should 
be  to  his  second  coming. 

Vers.  5-13.  Jesus  therefore  began  to  warn  them  against 
the  false  prophets  who  prognosticate  an  immediate  end  to  the 
world,  assuring  them  that  before  this  the  gospel  must  be  preached 
to  all  the  nations.  He  also  warned  them  of  the  persecutions 
they  must  endure  in  the  fulfillment  of  this  task,  and  of  their 
being  brought  before  governors  and  kings  as  witnesses  for  the 
gospel.  For  their  advocate  before  such  tribunals  they  should 
have  the  Holy  Spirit,  giving  them  an  utterance  above  their 
own.    Patience  in  endurance  to  the  end  would  be  their  salvation. 

Vers.  14-23.  But  as  regards  the  special  woes  to  come  upon 
those  in  Judcea,  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  must  be  fulfilled. 
The  mystery  of  iniquity  must  reach  its  culmination  in  a  deso- 
lating Presence  occupying  the  place  belonging  to  God.  The 
inhabitants  of  the  land  would  be  driven  to  dens  and  caves  with 
sufferings  unparalleled.  None  would  survive  but  for  God's 
merciful  shortening  of  the  time.  Then  more  than  ever  would 
they  need  to  remember  his  warning  against  the  false  prophets 
and  false  Christs;  for  men  would  then  arise  who  would  even 
show  signs  and  wonders  to  lead  astray  the  very  followers  of 
Jesus  themselves.  His  own  prediction  of  these  events  should 
warn  them  that  even  this  Great  Tribulation  marks  not  yet  the 
end. 

Vers.  24-27.    The  real  Coming  of  the  Son  of  man  would  be 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  179 

preceded  by  signs  not  on  earth  but  in  the  height  of  heaven; 
visible  tokens,  among  sun,  moon,  and  stars  of  the  shaking  of 
heavenly  thrones  and  principalities.  Then  should  appear  the 
Son  of  man,  and  gather  unto  him  his  chosen  ones  from  one  ex- 
tremity of  earth  to  the  other. 

Vers.  28-31.  As  the  fig  tree  gives  sure  token  of  harvest  by 
the  swelling  of  its  buds,  so  must  the  tokens  of  earth  be  judged. 
The  swelling  together  of  the  spreading  gospel,  and  of  the  furious 
powers  of  evil  that  oppose  it,  were  tokens  that  her  great  harvest 
time  is  at  hand,  and  the  Reaper  at  the  door.  The  generation 
which  rejected  him  should  surely  see  his  return. 

Vers.  32-37.  Nevertheless  the  disciple  must  never  remit 
his  watch  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  Though  he  be  forewarned 
of  all  that  must  first  come  to  pass,  of  the  cidmination  both  of 
good  and  ill,  the  day  and  hour  were  known  to  no  one;  no,  not 
to  the  angels,  nor  even  to  the  Son,  but  to  the  Father  only.  There- 
fore as  servants  keep  watch  for  the  coming  of  the  Master  of 
the  house,  so  the  Church  also,  not  by  its  elders  and  teachers 
only,  but  by  all  its  members,  must  watch  for  the  coming  of  the 
Lord. 


SUBDIVISION  C    C  13.— CRITICISM 

To  the  Teaching  in  the  Temple  R  subjoins  a  special  agglutination  of 
Q  sayings  taking  the  place  of  the  eschatological  discourse  of  the  teach- 
ing source.  It  is  linked  to  the  foregoing  by  means  of  a  saying1  pre- 
dicting the  overthrow  of  the  temple,  precisely  in  the  way  that  this  was 
really  accomplished.  The  superstructure  and  colonnades  were,  as  we 
know,  destroyed  by  fire  during  the  siege  in  70  a.d.  But  the  reference 
here  ("what  manner  of  stones,"  "these  great  buildings")  is  to  the 
prodigious  blocks  of  the  Herodian  substructure,  many  of  which  are 
still  in  place  and  measure  from  25  to  27  feet  in  length  by  6  or  more  in 
thickness.  Demolition  alone  could  destroy  such  masonry,  and  to 
this  Titus  resorted  after  the  capture,  to  destroy  the  effectiveness  of 
the  stronghold;  for  such  it  was.2  We  have  independent  attestation  of 
a  saying  of  Jesus  predicting  the  overthrow  of  "these  great  buildings," 
or  rather  contrasting  with  them  the  real  greatness  and  indestructi- 
bility of  the  spiritual  temple.3  We  cannot  therefore  regard  the  present 
as  anything  more  than  Mark's  pragmatic  adaptation  of  the  "predic- 
tion" to  the  event.  If  we  trace  the  connection  backward  beyond  the 
interjected  material  of  the  parable  of  the  Usurping  Husbandmen  and 
Dialogues  against  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Scribes4  to  the  really 
kindred  Challenge  of  Jesus'  Authority5  we  shall  see  that  such  is  in 
reality  the  connection  made  in  Jn.  2:  13-22. 

In  the  Question  of  the  Four  Disciples8  R  frames  a  setting  for  the 
discourse,  significantly  connecting  the  revelation  of  the  Son  of  Man  with 
the  Overthrow  of  the  Temple.  This  connection  is  distinctive  of  Mark. 
In  Q  we  have  eschatological  teaching,  predictions  of  judgment,  warn- 

»  13:  1,  2.  2  Josephus.  War  VII,  i.  1.  *  14:  58;  15:  29;  Jn.  2:  19. 

*  C.  12.  6  11:  27-33.  "  Vers.  3,  4. 


180  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

ings  of  persecution,  and  perhaps  also  of  the  doom  of  Jerusalem;  but 
no  attempt  is  made  to  bring  these  into  temporal  connection — a  strong 
indication  that  the  date  of  Q  is  anterior  to  66-70  a.d.  Mark  takes 
the  radical  step  of  combining  these  separate  warnings  into  a  single 
discourse,  in  which  the  temporal  relation  of  the  three  is  defined,  though 
the  motive,  so  far  from  encouraging  the  spirit  of  apocalyptic  enthu- 
siasm, is  rather  to  dampen.  The  unifying  idea  and  the  burden  of  the 
teaching  are  Pauline,  even  to  the  adoption  of  the  precise  word  of 
II  Thess.  2:  1,  "Be  not  agitated."  R  holds  that  Jesus  had  predicted 
the  events  of  30-70  a.d.,  in  fact  down  to  his  own  second  coming,  which 
would  be  but  little  later.  The  mysterious  references  of  Paul  in  II  Thess. 
2  give  the  outline  of  the  revelation.  From  the  three  divisions  in  which 
the  material  is  grouped  it  becomes  evident  what  R's  purpose  was,  and 
possible  inferentially  to  frame  a  reasonable  conclusion  as  to  his  own 
date  and  situation. 

(1)  The  first  paragraph  of  the  discourse1  combines  certain  warnings 
of  Q  concerning  troubles  to  come  with  commonplaces  of  apocalyptic 
"scripture"  to  form  an  outline  corresponding  to  the  stereotyped  con- 
cept of  the  Beginning  of  Travail. 2  The  motive  is  the  Pauline  one  to 
repress  fanatical  application  of  these  calamities  as  signs  of  the  im- 
mediate Coming.3  National  evils  are  predicted  in  the  first  half  of 
the  paragraph, 4  persecutions  of  believers  in  the  second.5  The  former 
must  not  be  mistaken  for  signs  of  the  end;  the  latter  must  be  endured 
with  patience. 

(2)  The  second  paragraph9  relates  to  a  specific  culmination  of 
calamity  corresponding  to  the  apocalyptic  Great  Tribulation.7  This 
calamity  affects  "those  that  are  in  Judaea."8  It  corresponds  in  some 
way  to  the  defilement  of  the  temple  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  167 
B.C.,  referred  to  in  Dan.  12:  11.  The  very  elect  themselves  will  be 
tempted  after  this  horror  to  go  after  the  false  Christs  and  false  prophets 
who  cry,  "Lo,  here  is  the  Christ;  or,  Lo,  there."  Still  the  believer  is 
to  repress  his  ardent  hopes,  remembering  that  Jesus  had  predicted  all 
this  as  not  to  be  taken  for  the  Coming. 

(3)  The  third  paragraph9  differentiates  the  true  Coming  as  utterly 
and  entirely  outside  the  sphere  of  mere  national  calamities,  or  even 
the  Great  Tribulation  endured  by  "those  in  Judaea."  Its  scene  will 
be  in  the  upper  air,  disaster  to  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  a  conflict  of 
heavenly  powers  with  revelation  of  the  victorious  Son  of  man  of  Dan. 
7:  13.  This  will  take  place  within  the  limit  of  "those  days";  but  not 
until  after  the  Great  Tribulation. 

What  follows  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter10  is  almost  undisguisedly 
taken  from  Q.  It  is  a  reenforcement  of  the  general  lesson  of  patient, 
hopeful  waiting  for  the  Day  of  the  Lord,  as  those  who  expect  the 
harvest,  neither  impatient  nor  downcast;  and  yet  with  that  watchful- 
ness which  befits  men  who  though  they  know  the  season  cannot  predict 
the  day  nor  the  hour,  and  would  not  be  taken  unaware. 

Thus  the  whole  of  this  most  elaborate  of  R's  agglutinated  discourses 
is  devoted  to  the  earnest  endeavor  to  counteract  eschatological  fanati- 
cism. Despondency  is  encouraged  by  the  confident  assurance,  made 
with  all  the  solemnity  words  can  convey,  that  the  Coming  will  certainly 
take  place  within  the  lifetime  of  Jesus'  contemporaries.1 1  The  fact 
suggests  that  the  cry,  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  Coming?12  may  have 

i  Vera.  5-13.  2  Ver.  9;  cf.  II  Esdr.  16:  18. 

*  Ver.  7;  cf.  II  Thess.  2:  1;  ver.  136;  cf.  II  Esdr.  6:  25;  Heb.  10:  34,  36.  39; 
Jas.  1:  12.  4  Vers.  5-8.  6  Vers.  9-13.  8  Vera.  14-23. 

■>  Ver.  19;  cf.  Dan.  12:  1.  8  Ver.  14.  »  Vers.  24-27.  w  Vers.  28-37. 

"Vers.  30,  31.  "II  Pt.  3:4. 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  181 

already  begun  to  be  heard.  But  the  main  endeavor  is  in  line  with 
II  Thess.  2  in  repression  of  an  enthusiastic  disposition  to  be  "troubled 
as  touching  the  Coming,  whether  by  spirit,  or  saying,  or  apostolic 
epistle  representing  that  the  Day  of  the  Lord  is  immediately  impend- 
ing." The  allusions  to  the  story  of  Acts  21-28,  *  and  to  world-wide 
persecution,  with  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon  Christians,2 
seem  certainly  to  imply  knowledge  of  the  events  of  60-64  a.d.  The 
description  of  the  Great  Tribulation  which  falls  upon  "those  in  Judaea,"3 
while,  of  course,  veiled  under  scriptural  and  symbolic  language  as 
befits  "prophecy,"4  cannot  be  adequately  accounted  for,  unless  we 
consider  that  the  horrors  of  66-70  a.d.  are  primarily  in  mind.  And  in 
vers.  21-23  R  is  already  endeavoring  to  counteract  the  disposition  of 
false  Christs  and  false  prophets  to  make  capital  of  these  events.  The 
year  70  a.d.  thus  seems  an  absolute  terminus  a  quo  for  the  dating  of 
the  Gospel  in  its  present  form.  On  the  other  hand,  the  encouragement 
to  believers  to  hope  that  the  Coming  will  still  be  "in  those  days"  if  not 
"immediately"5  after  that  tribulation,  and  certainly  within  the  life- 
time of  Jesus'  contemporaries,6  fixes  with  only  less  positive  definiteness 
the  terminus  ad  quem.  Considering  the  exceptional  effort  the  evan- 
gelist has  spent  on  the  compilation  of  this  particular  chapter,  and  its 
exceptional  character  as  compared  with  his  general  avoidance  of  dis- 
course material,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  regard  these  events  of  64-70 
a.d.  as  having  largely  occasioned  R's  recasting  of  the  old-time  Petrine 
tradition.  Our  Gospel  of  Mark  may  safely  be  dated  on  the  evidence  of 
this  chapter  in  70-75  a.d.  If  we  could  be  sure  that  Matthew  under- 
stood the  "great  tribulation"  of  "those  in  Judsea"  just  as  Mark  in- 
tended, his  insertion  of  the  word  "immediately"  in  Mt.  24:  29  would 
almost  compel  a  dating  of  this  Gospel,  already  dependent  on  Mark, 
within  the  seventies.  But  from  his  recomparison  of  Dan.  12:  11  it 
seems  equally  probable  that  he  was  expecting  this  desecration  of  "a 
holy  place"  as  still  to  come. 


»  Vers.  9,  10.  2  Vers.  12,  13.  8  Vera.  14-20. 

4  On  the  interpretation,  especially  of  ver.  14,  see  notes. 
6  Mt.  24:  29  inserts  this  word.  •  Vers.  24,  30,  31. 


182 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


\3x\-4 


13  A  ND  as  he  went  forth  out  of  the  temple, 

xjL     one  of  his  disciples  saith  unto  him, 

faster,    behold,    what     manner    of 

2  stones  and  what  manner  of  buildings !  And 
Jesus  said  unto  him,  Seest  thou  these  great 
buildings?  there  shall  not  be  left  here  one 
stone  upon  another,  which  shall  not  be 
thrown  down.2 

3  And  as  he  sat  on  the  mount  of  Olives 
over  against  the  temple,  Peter  and  James 
and  John  and  Andrew  asked  him  privately, 

4  Tell  us,  when  shall  these  things  be?  and 
what  (shall  be)  the  sign  when  these 
things  are  all  about  to  be  accomplished? 

1  Or,  Teacher. 

2  0  var.  add   and   in   three   days   another  shall  arise  without 
hands. 


13:1,  2=Mt.  24: 
1,  2=Lk.  21: 
5,  6 

(X) 
(14:58;  15:29; 
Jn.  2:  19) 


Vers.  3,  4=Mt. 
24:3=Lk.  21: 
7 

R 


Vers.  1,  2.  The  huge  blocks  of  the  Herodian  substructure  of  the 
temple  and  rich  sculpture  of  columns  and  vaulting  are  still  visible  as 
one  ascends  through  the  southern  entrance.  The  prediction  of  over- 
throw seems  to  be  the  same  saying  given  in  Jn.  2:  19  and  referred  to 
in  14:  58;  15:  29.  If  so,  its  original  intention  was  only  to  contrast 
Jesus'  work,  a  spiritual  rebuilding  of  the  temple  accomplished  by 
bringing  the  lost  sons  into  renewed  fellowship  with  their  Father  in 
heaven,  and  Herod's  enterprise,  undertaken  to  meet  popular  messianic 
expectations.  This  contrast  of  the  spiritual  vs.  the  visible  temple  is 
pervasive  in  the  New  Testament  since  the  time  of  Stephen's  speech 
(Acts  7:  44-50;  I  Cor.  3:  10-17,1  etc.).  The  addition  made  by  some 
western  variants  after  ver.  2  shows  a  perception  of  this  as  the  place 
of  the  missing  saying.  It  may  possibly  represent  a  survival  from  the 
source. 

Vers.  3,  4.  For  the  first  and  only  time  R  reverts  to  the  group  men- 
tioned in  1:  16-20.  The  object  is  similar  to  the  mention  of  the  Twelve 
as  recipients  of  exclusive  enlightenment  on  earlier  occasions  (4:  10,  34; 
7:  17;  9:  31;  10:  10).  The  present  teaching  is  restricted  to  the  nar- 
rowest circle  of  all  save  that  of  the  three  martyr-apostles  who  are  present 
at  the  scenes  of  conflict  with  Death.  R  intends  the  ensuing  discourse 
to  be  received  as  a  very  special  "revelation."     See  note  on  9:  2-10. 

Ver.  4.  The  sign  when  these  things  are  all  about  to  be  accomplished 
(cf.  Matthew,  "of  thy  coming  and  the  end  of  the  world").  The  reference 
in  Mark  is  primarily  to  the  overthrow  of  the  temple  (ver.  2),  though 
possibly  we  may  extend  it  backward  to  include  12:  9-11.  In  either 
case  attention  is  fixed  primarily  on  the  events  of  66-70  a.d.  In  Mat- 
thew the  interest  is  more  supermundane.  Mark  constructs  the  dis- 
course to  teach  that  the  Coming  will  not  be  till  after  those  events. 
Matthew  adopts  it  for  the  sake  of  the  assurance  that  it  will  be  "im- 
mediately after  the  tribulation  of  those  days."  It  does  not  follow  that 
Matthew  is  earlier.  Here  the  saying  becomes  a  specific  prediction  of 
the  demolition  by  Titus. 


1  See  also  Ep.  Barn.,  xvi. 


13:5-8  THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  183 


5  And  Jesus  began  to  say  unto  them, 
Take  heed  that  no  man  lead  you  astray. 

6  Many  shall  come  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am 

7  (he) ;  and  shall  lead  many  astray.  And  when 
ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and  rumours  of  wars, 
be  not  troubled:  (these  things)  must  needs 

8  come  to  pass;  but  the  end  is  not  yet.  For 
nation  shall  rise  against  nation,  and  king- 
dom against  kingdom:  there  shall  be  earth- 
quakes in  divers  places;  there  shall  be 
famines:  these  things  are  the  beginning  of 
travail. 


Vers.  6-8=Mt. 

24:4-8=Lk. 

21:8-11 
R 
(II  Thess.  2:  1- 

12) 


Vers.  5-8.  The  Beginning  of  Travail.  Acts  2:  24,  with  its  allusion 
to  the  "snares  (or,  as  Luke,  after  Gr.  version,  misrenders,  "birth  pangs") 
of  death"  of  Ps.  18:  5,  admits  us  to  the  conception.  Deliverance  comes 
at  the  darkest  hour.  Thus  the  greatest  sufferings  of  God's  people  are 
the  birth  pangs  of  redemption  (cf.  Jn.  16:  21).  General  national  ca- 
lamities, he  means,  have  some  significance,  but  these  are  only  the 
earlier,  milder  pangs.  This  doctrine  is  enunciated  in  opposition  to 
that  of  the  Falling  Away,  wherein  R  sees  a  predicted  Jewish  political 
messianism,  already  showing  itself  in  the  Beginning  of  Travail  (ver.  6), 
but  specially  dangerous  after  the  Great  Tribulation  (vers.  21-23). 
Against  the  seductive  words  of  such  agitators  Christians  must  restrain 
their  impatience  until  wholly  super-terrestrial  phenomena  declare  the 
real  Coming  in  unmistakable  terms.  Matthew  inserts  two  verses  (Mt. 
24:  11,  12)  to  bring  this  prediction  to  bear  upon  the  teachers  of  "law- 
lessness." 

Ver.  6.  Many  shall  come  in  my  name,  saying  I  am  (he).  R  has  in 
mind  political  agitators  who  claim  to  be  the  Christ  (cf.  parallels). 
How  these  could  come  "in  Christ's  name"  (i.e.,  calling  themselves 
"Christians,"  9:  37)  is  somewhat  problematical.  Perhaps  R  means 
calling  themselves  "Christs,"  or  "redeemers."  Doubtless  he  is  affected 
by  II  Thess.  2:  3-12,  from  which  even  the  language  of  ver.  7  is  bor- 
rowed, but  it  is  noteworthy  that  he  no  longer  expects  "the  Lawless 
One"  to  appear  "in  the  temple  of  God  setting  himself  forth  as  God." 
The  desecration  of  the  temple  takes  other  form  (see  on  ver.  14),  and 
the  Lawless  One  is  not  identified,  as  we  might  expect,  either  with  Simon 
Magus,  or,  as  in  Revelation,  with  a  deified  emperor.  "There  are  many 
antichrists,"  as  in  1  Jn.  2:  18,  but  so  far  from  bearing  the  traits  of  the 
heresiarchs,  they  resemble  more  strongly  the  Egyptian  of  Acts  21:  38, 
or  the  goetae  ("pretenders")  of  Josephus,1  and  are  engaged  in  the  very 
political  business  of  provoking  insurrection. 

Vers.  7,  8.  Wars,  earthquakes,  famines.  In  so  general  a  statement 
it  would  be  hopeless  to  attempt  identification  of  the  particular  calami- 
ties in  R's  mind.  Yet  with  all  his  distaste  for  such  apocalyptic  reck- 
oning of  the  times  as  occupies,  e.g.,  the  Jewish-Christian  author  of 
Rev.  6,  we  may  reasonably  consider  that  the  Parthian  wars  (51-62  a.d.), 
the  great  Palestinian  famine  of  46-7  a.d.,  and  the  Asian  earthquake  of 
61  or  63  a.d.  stood  in  his  mental  background. 


1  With  ver.  22  cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII,  iv.  1,  and  XX,  viii.  6. 


184 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


13:9-13 


9  But  take  ye  heed  to  yourselves :  for  they 
shall  deliver  you  up  to  councils;  and  in 
synagogues  shall  ye  be  beaten;  and  before 
governors  and  kings  shall  ye  stand  for 
my  sake,    for    a    testimony   unto    them. 

10  And    the    gospel    must    first    be 

11  preached  unto  all  the  nations.  And 
when  they  lead  you  (to  judgement),  and  de- 
liver you  up,  be  not  anxious  beforehand 
what  ye  shall  speak:  but  whatsoever  shall 
be  given  you  in  that  hour,  that  speak  ye: 
for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy 

12  Ghost.  And  brother  shall  deliver  up 
brother  to  death,  and  the  father  his  child; 
and  children  shall  rise  up  against  parents, 

13  and  *cause  them  to  be  put  to  death.  And 
ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for  my  name's 
sake:  but  he  that  endureth  to  the  end,  the 
same  shall  be  saved. 


1  Or,  put  them  to  death. 


Vers.  9-13=Mt. 
24:9-14=Lk. 
21 : 13-19 
R(Q) 

(Mt.  10:  17-22, 
34-36=  Lk.  12: 
11,  12,  51,  53; 
cf.Jn.l6:l-13) 
R 


(Mic.  7:  6; 

II  Eadr.  6:  24, 
25) 


Vers.  9-13.  Persecution  and  the  Paraclete.  To  his  warning  against 
the  agitators  pursuant  to  the  vein  of  II  Thess.  2:  1-12,  R  subjoins  a  Q 
saying  regarding  persecution,  developed  with  special  reference  to  the 
story  of  Paul  as  related  in  Acts  22-28,  his  doctrine  of  the  universal 
proclamation  of  the  gospel,  Rom.  11:  25,  and  the  prophecies  of  IIEsdr. 
5:  9;  6:  24,  25;  Mic.  7:  6.  Jesus,  according  to  the  older  source,  had 
warned  the  Twelve  of  a  time  to  come  when  the  world  would  clamor 
for  their  blood.  The  "special  source"  of  Luke  strongly  supports  this 
tradition  of  Jesus'  warning  (Lk.  22:  35-38)  at  the  same  time  that  it 
shows  the  version  of  Mt.  10:  17-22  =  Lk.  12:  11,  12  to  be  largely  ac- 
commodated to  the  language  of  Mark.  The  burden  of  both  versions 
is  the  promise  to  the  disciples  of  God's  Spirit  as  their  defender  before 
human  tribunals.  In  Rom.  8:  26,  27  Paul  applies  the  figure  of  the 
Spirit  as  Advocate  to  the  phenomenon  of  prayers  "in  a  tongue." 
These  are  unintelligible  to  human  ears,  but  the  Spirit  intercedes  thereby 
before  the  tribunal  of  God.  Still  another  sense  of  the  paraclesis  of  the 
Spirit  appears  in  Jn.  16:  13,  where  it  is  applied  to  exhortation,  teach- 
ing, and  prophecy  "in  the  Spirit."  Finally,  in  I  Jn.  2:1,  the  Advocate 
in  heaven  is  Jesus  himself,  who  makes  intercession  after  the  conception 
of  Heb.  9: 11-14.  The  common  root  of  these  divergent  applications  seems 
to  be  the  saying  before  us,  nearly  in  the  form  of  Lk.  21:14,  15  (QLK). 

Vers.  12,  13.  The  prediction  of  discord  in  the  household  which  we 
find  in  Q  (Mt.  10:  34-36  =  Lk.  12:  51-53)  is  a  kind  of  inversion  of  Mai. 
4:  6.  Ehjah,  who  comes  to  turn  the  hearts  of  fathers  to  children  and 
children  to  fathers,  must  find  conditions  of  estrangement.  The  apoca- 
lypses describe  this  in  terms  borrowed  from  Mic.  7:  6  (cf.  II  Esdr.  6: 
24,  25).  Mark  applies  the  Q  saying  to  the  delatores,  of  whom  we  hear 
in  Pliny's  letter  to  Trajan.  The  period  of  persecution  referred  to  can 
scarcely  be  that  of  Domitian.  We  must  conclude  from  the  many  New 
Testament  allusions  (I  Pt.  4:  12-17;  Heb.  10:  32-34;  Acts  5:  41)  that 


13: 14  THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM  185 


14  But  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  deso- 
lation standing  where  xhe  ought  not — let 
him  that  readeth  understand, — then  let 
them  that  are  in  Judaea  flee  unto  the  moun- 


*  Codex  D.  it. 


Vers.l4-20=Mt. 
24:15-22= 
Lk.  21 :  20-24 

i*(Q) 
Dan.  12:  11 


the  example  of  Nero's  outbreak  in  Rome  had  been  followed  sporadically 
in  the  provinces.  In  ver.  13&  R  couples  his  exhortation  to  patience 
with  the  promise  of  II  Esdr.  6:  25. 

Vers.  14-23.  The  Great  Tribulation.  This  paragraph,  like  the  pre- 
ceding, consists  of  Q  sayings  combined  with  apocalyptic  "scriptures" 
on  the  basis  of  II  Thess.  2:  1-12.  As  with  Paul,  the  object  is  to  repress 
fanatical  enthusiasm  (vers.  21-23),  but  in  place  of  the  "Man  of  Law- 
lessness, sitting  in  the  temple  of  God  and  setting  himself  forth  as 
God,"  R  falls  back  upon  the  symbolism  of  Dan.  12:  11.  This  he  takes 
to  be  a  prediction  of  the  devastation  wrought  by  Titus. 

Ver.  14.  The  Abomination  of  Desolation  standing  where  he  (sic) 
ought  not.  The  prediction  is  purposely  veiled  in  the  enigmatic  form 
of  apocalypse.  Three  factors  determine  its  form:  (1)  The  prediction 
of  Dan.  12:  11  affords  the  phrase  Abomination  of  Desolation  standing 
in  the  Holy  Place.  The  reference  is  to  a  material  object,  viz,  the  altar 
to  Zeus  Ouranios,  the  Lord  of  Heaven,  whose  Hebrew  equivalent  was 
Baal  Shamayim,  erected  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  the  temple  in  167 
B.C.  By  a  play  upon  the  two  elements  of  the  name,  Baal  ("Lord";  for 
which  biblical  and  post-canonical  writers  habitually  substitute  such 
words  as  bosheth,  "shame";  aven,  "vanity";  shiqqutz,  "abomination") 
and  Shamayim,  "heavens,"  the  form  Shiqqutz  Slwmem,  "Abomination 
that  makes  desolate"  was  obtained.  Matthew,  in  transferring  to  his 
pages  the  Markan  verse,  reassimilates  it  to  the  Scripture  from  which 
it  was  taken,  as  he  habitually  does.  He  does  this  not  only  by  changing 
the  participle  to  a  neuter  (see  var.),  so  that  it  again  applies  to  a  material 
object,  and  substituting  "in  a  (not  the)  holy  place"  for  the  vague 
"where  he  ought  not,"  but  by  specifically  referring  the  reader  to  "Daniel 
the  prophet."  (2)  The  Pauline  apocalypse  (II  Thess.  2:  4)  seems  to  be 
accountable  for  Mark's  curious  introduction  of  the  masculine  participle, 
''standing  where  he  ought  not."  (3)  The  actual  course  of  events  has 
certainly  affected  R's  employment  of  his  two  scriptural  data.  From 
the  time  of  Caligula's  threat  to  set  up  his  own  statue  in  the  temple  for 
divine  honors  (a  menace  only  averted  by  his  timely  assassination  in 
January,  41  a.d.)  the  desecration  of  the  temple  by  Roman  worship  of 
the  emperor  was  a  horror  never  absent  from  Jewish  fears.  Only  the 
demolition  of  the  temple  in  70  a.d.  made  this  forever  impossible.  The 
apocalyptic  conception  attested  by  Paul  of  the  revelation  of  the  "man 
of  sin,  sitting  in  the  temple  of  God  and  giving  himself  forth  as  God" 
may  well  have  become  connected  in  Jewish  and  Jewish-Christian 
apocalypse  before  70  a.d.  with  this  menace  of  emperor-worship.  After 
70  a.d.  modifications  would  be  necessary.  Matthew's  adaptation  is 
characteristic.  He  conforms  the  language  as  closely  as  possible  to 
the  Old  Testament  original,  making  only  the  minute  change  of  "the 
Holy  Place"  to  "a  holy  place,"  skillfully  permitting,  however,  by  this 
means,  an  application  of  the  prophecy  to  such  a  synagogue  desecration 
as  Josephus  declares  to  have  been  the  actual  occasion  of  the  outbreak  of 
the  war.1    Mark's  adaptation  is  equally  characteristic.    For  "the  Holy 

1  War  II.  xiv.  6. 


186 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       13: 15-20 


15  tains:  and  let  him  that  is  on  the  housetop 
not  go  down,  nor  enter  in,  to  take  anything 

16  out  of  his  house:  and  let  him  that  is  in  the 
field    not    return  back  to  take  his  cloke. 

17  But  woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child  and 
to   them   that   give  suck  in   those   days! 

18  And  pray  ye  that  lit  be  not  in  the  winter. 

19  For  those  days  shall  be  tribulation,  such 
as  there  hath  not  been  the  like  from  the 
beginning  of  the  creation  which  God  created 

20  until  now,  and  never  shall  be.  And  except 
the  Lord  had  shortened  the  days,  no  flesh 
would  have  been  saved:  but  for  the  elect's 
sake,   whom   he  chose,   he  shortened  the 


1  /3  var.  they. 


(Lk.  17:  31,  32; 
23:  27-31) 


Dan.  12:  1 


Ps.  102:  23  (Gr.) 


Place"  he  substitutes  the  vague  "where  he  ought  not,"  and  for  the 
"abominable  thing,"  a  desolating  personality,  which,  however,  is  no 
longer  the  Pauline  "Man  of  Sin,"  but — if  we  may  judge  from  the 
attachment  here  from  QLK  (Lk.  17:  31=21:  21)  of  the  warning  to 
flee,  and  the  addressing  of  it  to  those  in  Juda?a" — it  is  the  invading 
power  of  Rome  in  the  Holy  Land.  Let  him  that  readeth  understand. 
Gr.,  "apply  his  mind,"  i.e.,  either  to  the  Danielic  prophecy  or  to  R's  own 
interpretation  of  it.  R  evidently  thinks  there  is  much  danger  of  mis- 
interpretation. The  vagueness  of  his  own  terms  leaves  room  for  justi- 
fying both  Dan.  12:  11  and  II  Thess.  2:  4.  Those  in  Judaea.  R  does 
not  forget  Galilee  and  Samaria.  He  speaks  like  a  Roman  of  the  whole 
former  domain  of  Herod.  Flee  to  the  mountains.  There  is  no  reference 
to  the  alleged  removal  of  the  Church  to  Pella.  The  fenced  cities  and 
fortresses,  of  which  Jerusalem  was  chief,  must  be  avoided.  The  dev- 
astation will  leave  no  refuge  but  dens  and  caves. 

Vers.  15,  16.  QLK.  In  its  original  setting  (Lk.  17:  26-32)  this 
saying  relates  to  the  Coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  from  which  there  can 
be  no  flight.  To  seek  to  rescue  goods  is  folly.  Here  it  is  used  to  em- 
phasize the  imperative  need  of  flight,  but  is,  of  course,  inappropriate. 

Ver.  17.  Cf.  Lk.  23:  27-31  (QLK). 

Ver.  18.  Not  the  "flight"  (so  Matthew),  which  could  be  effected  as 
well  in  winter  as  in  summer,  but  the  sojourn  in  the  mountains.  R  may 
well  have  heard  of  the  sufferings  of  the  unfortunate  refugees  (cf.  Heb. 
11:38). 

Ver.  19.  From  Dan.  12: 1. 

Ver.  20.  The  doctrine  of  the  shortening  (Gr.,  "amputation")  of  the 
days  of  Messiah,  i.e.,  reduction  of  the  period  of  painful  waiting,  is  re- 
ferred to  in  Ep.  Barn.,  iv.  3  (ca.  135  a.d.)  in  a  quotation  from  a  lost 
portion  of  the  Enoch  literature:  "As  Enoch  saith,  'For  to  this  end  the 
Master  hath  cut  short  the  seasons  and  the  days,  that  his  Beloved  might 
hasten  and  come  to  his  inheritance.'  "  It  seems  to  rest  on  Ps.  102:  23 
(Greek  version).1 


1  In  Heb.  1 :  10-12  this  passage  is  regarded  aa  addressed  to  Christ,  rendering 
ver.  23,  "He  answered  him  in  the  way  of  his  strength,  Tell  me  the  fewness  of  my 
days,"  etc. 


13*21-23 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 


187 


21  days.  And  then  if  any  man  shall  say  unto 
you,  Lo,  here  is  the  Christ;  or,  Lo,  there; 

22  believe  '(it)  not:  for  there  shall  arise 
2[false  Christs  and]  false  prophets,  and 
shall  shew  signs  and  wonders,  that  they 

23  may  lead  astray,  if  possible,  the  elect.  But 
take  ye  heed:  behold,  I  have  told  you  all 
things  beforehand. 

24  But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation, 
the  sun  shall  be  darkened,  and  the  moon 
shall  not  give  her  light,  and  the  stars  shall 

25  be  falling  from  heaven,  and  the  powers 
that  are  in  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken. 

26  And  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man 
coming  in   clouds  with  great  power  and 

27  glory.  And  then  shall  he  send  forth  the 
angels,  and  shall  gather  together  his  elect 
from  the  four  winds,  from  the  uttermost 
part  of  the  earth  to  the  uttermost  part  of 
heaven. 

28  Now  from  the  fig  tree  learn  her  parable: 
when  her  branch  is  now  become  tender, 
and  putteth  forth  its  leaves,  ye  know  that 


1  Or,  him. 


2  0  var.  omit  [  ]. 


Vers.31-23=Mt. 
34 :  23-25 

R(Q) 
(Mt.  24:  26.  27= 
Lk.  17:  23-25; 
cf.  17:  20-22) 


Vers.24-27=Mt. 
24:29-31  = 
Lk.  21 :  26-37 
R 

(Cf.  II  Esdr.  5: 
4ff.;  Is.  13:  10; 
Dan.  7:  13;  Dt. 
30:  4;  Zech. 
2:6) 


Vers.28-31=Mt. 
24:32-35= 
Lk.  31 : 39-33 

R(Q?) 
(Cf.  11:  12-14; 
9:  1;  Mt.  5:  18 
=  Lk.  16:  17) 


Vers.  21,  22.  Ver.  21  is  a  Q  saying,  as  ver.  23  implies.  In  Luke  it 
assumes  a  double  form  (Lk.  17:  21,  23).  In  Mt.  24:  10-12  it  is  applied 
to  the  antinomian  heresiarchs.  On  the  sense  attached  by  Mark,  see 
above,  comment  on  vers.  5-8.  Ver.  22  merely  develops  ver.  21  on  the 
basis  of  II  Thess.  2:  9.  The  doctrine  of  the  Falling  Away  is  not  an 
invention  of  Paul,  but  one  of  the  stereotyped  features  of  the  Antichrist 
legend.  In  particular  the  miracles  of  the  false  prophet  (antithesis  to 
Enas,  the  witness  of  Messiah)  form  a  distinctive  feature  of  the  last 
days  (cf.  II  Thess.  2:  9;  I  Tim.  4:  1;  II  Tim.  3:  8;  Rev.  13:  13-15). 
The  original  sense  of  Jesus'  teaching  seems  to  be  fairly  apparent  in  the 
connection  of  Lk.  17:20-23.  It  rebukes  the  spirit  of  apocalyptic 
enthusiasm  and  commends  the  ethical  aspect  of  the  kingdom. 

Vers.  24-27.  The  Coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  Our  Gathering 
Together  unto  Him.  The  description  of  these  two  connected  events, 
which  in  II  Thess.  2:  1  are  declared  to  be  a  sequel  to  the  Falling  Away 
and  Revelation  of  the  Man  of  Sin,  is  borrowed  from  Old  Testament 
passages  such  as  Is.  13:  10  (Greek  version);  14:  12;  Dan.  7:  13;  Zech. 
2:  6;  Dt.  30:  4.  No  special  saying  of  Jesus  nor  apocalyptic  leaflet 
need  be  presupposed  to  account  for  such  commonplaces  of  Jewish 
eschatology.  The  object  of  emphasizing  the  supra-terrestrial  nature 
of  the  phenomena  is,  as  in  II  Thess.  2:  1-12,  to  subdue  millenarian 
fanaticism. 

Vers.  28-31 .  The  Sign  of  the  Fig  Tree.  The  object  of  the  paragraph 
is  to  counteract  any  too  depressing  tendency  in  the  preceding. 
As  surely  as  the  glad  season  of  summer  follows  winter's  discontent,  so 


188  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      13:29-33 


29  the  summer  is  nigh;  even  so  ye  also,  when 
ye  see  these  things  coming  to  pass,  know 
ye  that  %e  is  nigh,  (even)  at  the  doors. 

30  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  generation 
shall  not  pass  away,  until  all  these  things 

31  be  accomplished.  Heaven  and  earth  shall 
pass  away:  but  my  words  shall  not  pass 

32  away.  But  of  that  day  or  that  hour  know- 
eth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven, 

33  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.  Take  ye 
heed,  watch  2and  pray:  for   ye  know  not 

1  Or,  it.  2  Var.  omit  and  pray. 


Vers.33-37=Mt. 
34:36,  42=- 
Lk.  31 :  36 

R(Q) 


surely  will  the  Coming  gladden  the  hearts  of  those  who  have  endured 
to  the  end.  In  doctrinal  bearing  it  parallels  4:  26-29  and  Jas.  5:  7. 
Two  sayings  are  quoted  besides  the  parable:  the  former,  ver.  30, 
equivalent  in  sense  to  9:  1;  the  latter,  ver.  31,  perhaps  an  adaptation 
from  Q  (Mt.  5:  18  =  Lk.  16:  17). 

Ver.  29.  These  things.  Not,  of  course,  those  of  vers.  24-27,  but  of 
vers.  5-23.  The  reader  is  to  understand  that  neither  the  calamities 
of  the  nations,  nor  even  the  Great  Tribulation  of  "those  in  Judaea" 
which  furnish  the  stock  in  trade  of  the  false  prophet  and  false  Christ, 
are  to  be  identified  with  the  Coming.  They  have  significance,  but  only 
as  portents.    They  attest  the  ripening  of  the  world-harvest. 

Ver.  30.  This  confident  expectation,  as  yet  in  75  a.d.  unbroken, 
though  few  indeed  of  the  apostolic  group  were  then  surviving,  seems 
to  have  been  based  on  some  real  assurance  of  Jesus.  He  had  a  prophet's 
confidence  in  the  divineness  of  his  message.  And  if  it  were  not  to  be 
trodden  into  the  mire  of  oblivion,  some  intervention  of  God  must  come 
to  its  aid  ere  those  who  had  heard  it  passed  to  their  graves.  The 
language  is  based  on  Is.  51 : 6,  which  may  account  for  the  divergent 
application  in  Q  to  Yahweh's  "righteousness,"  understood  as  the  law, 
in  Mark  to  his  "salvation"  (see  comment  on  16:  14). 

Vers.  32-37.  The  Time  of  the  Coming  Unknown;  therefore  Watch. 
The  concluding  paragraph  of  Mark's  remarkable  eschatological  dis- 
course is  manifestly  based  on  the  teaching  of  Q  (Mt.  24:42-51;  25: 
14-30  =  Lk.  12:  37-46;  19:  11-28;  Acts  1:6,  7),  to  which  it  stands  in 
the  relation  of  a  meager  paraphrase,  scarcely  intelligible  in  parts  without 
the  fuller  original  (with  ver.  37  cf.  Lk.  12:  41).  There  is  an  inter- 
mingling of  the  two  themes  of  the  Watchful  Steward  (Mt.  24:  45-51  = 
Lk.  12:  41-46)  and  the  Entrusted  Talents  (Mt.  25:  14-30  =  Lk.  19: 
11-28),  of  which  the  latter  only  confuses  the  picture,  a  proof  of  the 
priority  of  Q  so  decisive  that  we  scarcely  need  to  add  the  evidence  of 
language,  which  has  terms  common  to  Q,  but  elsewhere  unknown  to 
Mark.  Paul  himself  attests  the  currency  of  this  teaching  (I  Thess.  5: 
2-6),  and  the  motive  for  its  introduction  is  doubtless  suggested  by  this 
Pauline  passage,  if  indeed  the  very  language  be  not  thus  affected, 

Ver.  32.  This  saying  has  been  removed  by  Luke  to  the  connection 
of  Acts  1:  6,  7;  but  note  the  context  in  Mt.  24:  36-42.  Lk.  17:  20-22 
introduces  this  subject  and  leaves  it  unsettled,  with  unmistakable 
traces  of  editorial  manipulation  ("one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  Man"). 
The  bearing  of  the  Q  teaching  seems  to  have  been  too  adverse  to  the 
apocalyptic  hopes  of  the  Church  to  maintain  itself  unaltered.     Neither 


13: 34-36 


THE  APPEAL  TO  JERUSALEM 


189 


34  when  the  time  is.  (It  is)  as  (when)  a  man, 
sojourning  in  another  country,  having  left 
his  house,  and  given  authority  to  his 
Servants,    to    each   one   his     work,    com- 

35  manded  also  the  porter  to  watch.  Watch 
therefore:  for  ye  know  not  when  the  lord  of 
the  house  cometh,  whether  at  even,  or  at 
midnight,   or   at   cockcrowing,   or  in   the 

36  morning;  lest  coming  suddenly  he  find  you 
sleeping.  2And  what  I  say  unto  you  I  say 
unto  all,  Watch. 


1  Gr.  bondservants. 


2  P  var.  But  unto  you  I  say,  Watch. 


(Mt.  24:  43-51; 
25:  14-30=  Lk. 
12:  37-46;  19: 
11-27) 


the  Son.  The  exception  is  more  significant  as  an  indication  of  Mark's 
disposition  to  place  Christ  above  humanity  than  of  his  placing  him 
below  divinity.  "The  Son"  cannot  be  here  understood  generically,  as 
in  Mt.  11:  27;  Jn.  8:  35.  It  refers  to  Jesus  personally  as  a  being  dif- 
ferent in  nature  from  men,  and  superior,  even  while  on  earth,  to  angels. 
It  reflects  the  same  advanced  Christology  as  1:  11,  24;  9:  7;  12:  35,  36, 
a  cruder  form  of  the  Pauline  incarnation  doctrine,  which  in  John  be- 
comes systematically  metaphysical. 

Ver.  34.  On  the  intermingling  of  the  two  parables  of  the  Steward 
and  the  Talents,  see  comment  on  vers.  32-37.  The  porter's  work  alone 
comes  here  into  consideration.  Mark  meets  the  suggestion  of  Mt.  24: 
45  and  Lk.  12:  41,  42  that  Church  leaders,  specifically  "Peter,"  have 
a  special  charge  in  this  matter  (cf.  Ezek.  33:  1-9),  with  the  explicit 
declaration  of  the  individual  responsibility  of  the  laity  (ver.  37) . 

Ver.  35.  The  language  ("therefore,"  "lord  of  the  house")  is  excep- 
tional in  Mark.  In  Q  (Mt.  10:  25;  20:  11;  24:  43;  Lk.  12:  39;  13:  25; 
14:  21)  Lord  of  the  house  is  a  favorite  parabolic  designation  of  the 
Christ  as  Heir  of  the  kingdom. 


PART   II 
DIVISION  VI.    Cc.  14-16 

THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 
STRUCTURE 

Not  since  the  opening  scenes  of  the  ministry  beside  the 
boats  on  the  lake-shore  near  Capernaum  have  we  met  scenes 
so  lifelike  and  realistic  as  confront  us  in  this  crowning 
element  of  the  Petrine  tradition,  the  story  of  the  night  in 
which  Jesus  was  betrayed.  Not  even  the  scenes  about 
Peter's  house  in  Capernaum  are  so  realistic  as  those  now 
presented  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  and  the  courtyard 
of  the  high  priest's  house,  where  Peter  sits  in  the  light  of  the 
fire  kindled  by  the  servants  "  because  of  the  cold."  The 
agony  under  the  olive  trees  is  a  trait  whose  human  pathos 
has  remained  indestructible  through  all  the  centuries  of 
scholastic  application,  like  the  first  vigil  of  prayer  in  the 
solitude  outside  Capernaum.1  And  once  more  Peter  comes 
to  the  fore.  Next  to  the  figure  of  Jesus  it  is  that  of  Peter 
round  which  the  whole  scene  revolves. 

This  applies,  however,  only  to  Subdivision  a,  which  in- 
cludes the  incidents  of  the  Night  of  Betrayal.2  Instantly, 
so  soon  as  Peter  has  fled  from  the  scene,  all  becomes  rela- 
tively vague  and  shadowy.  For  the  story  of  the  Trial  before 
Pilate  and  the  incidents  of  the  crucifixion  we  could  be  sure 
of  the  main  facts  independently  of  any  of  the  Twelve.  But 
the  story  does  not  go  beyond  just  these  main  facts.  The 
figure  of  Simon  of  Cyrene  is  indeed  an  exception,  and  seems 
to  be  introduced  for  the  very  purpose  of  presenting  a  sponsor 
for  the  tradition,  but  the  traits  which  seem  at  first  to  indi- 
cate some  direct  connection  with  eyewitnesses  of  the  scene, 
the  draught  of  wine,  parting  of  garments,  dying  utterance, 
turn  out  upon  closer  scrutiny  to  be  elaborations  of  "  fulfilled 
scriptures"  rather  than  authentic  tradition. 

As  the  story  closes  with  a  message  to  Peter  and  the  dis- 
ciples that  Jesus  will  go  before  them  into  Galilee,  it  is  appar- 
ent that  the  next  scene,  if  we  had  it,  would  have  again 
brought  Peter  into  the  foreground,  and  in  Galilee,  whence 

1 1:35-38.  2C.  14. 

190 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  191 

it  would  be  needful  to  bring  him  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the 
scattered  flock  to  Jerusalem,  which  certainly  was  to  every 
evangelist  the  original  seat  of  the  Church. 

It  is  true  that  the  conclusion  as  we  now  have  it1  presup- 
poses that  the  disciples  have  not  scattered,  but  are  together 
in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  whence  they  must  be  sent  to 
Galilee  by  means  of  a  message  from  the  angel  reminding 
them  of  the  appointment.  This,  however,  cannot  be  orig- 
inal. Why  must  they  go  to  Galilee  before  Jesus  can  reveal 
himself  to  them,  only  to  be  at  once  brought  back  again? 
Later  tradition2  feels  this  objection  and  therefore  cancels 
the  Galilean  episode  altogether.  In  reality  the  first  appear- 
ance ivas  in  Galilee,  and  had  to  be  there  because  the  disciples 
had  fled  thither.  This  trait  of  flight  and  desertion  cannot 
have  been  invented,  and  is  the  only  possible  explanation 
of  the  surviving  traditions  of  appearances  in  Galilee.  We 
may  be  certain  that  the  ancient  Petrine  tradition  coincided 
with  Paul's  summary  of  the  appearances,  beginning  with 
that  to  Peter,  and  justified  the  prayer  of  Jesus  for  Simon's 
restoration  that  he  might  rally  his  brethren.3 

This  implies  that  we  have  not  merely  lost  the  original 
ending  of  Mark,  as  the  very  mss.  testify,  but  that  even  this 
"original"  ending  already  displayed  important  changes  from 
the  Petrine  tradition. 

For  (1),  as  we  have  seen,  the  angel's  message4  implies 
that  the  disciples  and  Peter  have  not  fled  to  Galilee,  but 
must  be  sent  there  by  the  women.  (2)  The  appearance 
promised  is  not  an  appearance  to  Peter,  such  as  Paul  implies, 
nor  does  Peter  "stablish  his  brethren"  as  Lk.  22:  32  implies. 
In  the  two  proleptic  references5  as  they  now  stand,  the  ap- 
pearance to  Peter  loses  its  preeminent  significance  as  the 
foundation  event  of  the  Christian  Church,  being  robbed  of 
its  deepest  import  by  the  anticipatory  revelation  to  the 
women  at  the  sepulcher.  Moreover,  Peter's  part  even  in 
this  second  revelation  sinks  to  a  secondary  level.  He  is  no 
longer  the  rock  on  whom  his  brethren  are  stablished,  but 
merely  a  passive  though  first-named  member  of  the  group 
to  whom  Jesus  comes;  for  it  is  Jesus  who  now  fulfills  in  his 
own  person  the  task  which  in  Lk.  22 :  32  he  desires  Peter  to 
accomplish. 

Redactional  activity  has  manifestly  been  beforehand 
with  transcriptional  in  the  matter  of  the  ending  of  Mark. 
Transcribers  as  we  know  have  cancelled  the  story  of  how 


>  16:  1-8.  2  Lk.,  Jn.  1-20.  * 1  Cor.  15:  5;  Lk.  22:  32.  *  16:  7. 

5  14:  28;  16:  1-8. 


192  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

Jesus  went  before  the  disciples  to  Galilee  and  there  revealed 
himself  to  Peter  and  the  rest,  probably  at  their  fishing.1 
But  this  story  itself  was  already  a  modification  of  that 
known  to  Paul  and  Luke.  Its  point  of  attachment  is  in 
15:  40-47,  where  in  a  paragraph  showing  connection  with 
Qlk2  the  sponsors  for  the  holy  sepulcher  tradition,  of 
which  Paul  knows  nothing,  are  abruptly  introduced. 

Division  VI,  accordingly,  falls  into  two  subdivisions  fol- 
lowed by  the  beginning  of  a  third.  Of  these  only  Subdi- 
vision a,  on  the  Night  of  Betrayal,3  is  strongly  marked  by 
evidences  of  Petrine  story,  and  even  this,  as  we  shall  see, 
has  been  recast  in  the  interest  of  a  certain  ritual  practice. 
Subdivision  b,  on  the  Crucifixion,4  no  doubt  includes  ancient 
tradition  from  the  same  cycle  of  narrative  as  a,  though 
Peter  is  no  longer  sponsor;  while  Subdivision  c5  introduces 
an  almost  wholly  alien  element.  The  two  rival  appendices, 
as  is  now  universally  recognized,  represent  merely  the  effort 
of  later  scribes  to  supply  an  ending  to  complete  the  muti- 
lated Gospel. 


THE  NIGHT  IN  WHICH  JESUS  WAS  BETRAYED 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  a.  14:  1-72.  On  the  very  night  of  the  passover 
feast  Jesus  was  betrayed  to  the  priests  by  one  of  his  own  dis- 
ciples, but  not  before  he  had  instituted  a  new  rite  displacing 
the  commemoration  of  the  Jews'  deliverance  from  Egypt  until 
the  fulfillment  of  both  in  the  great  feast  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
These  events  took  place  as  follows: — 

Vers.  1,  2.  As  Passover  night  drew  near,  the  priests  were 
seeking  means  of  destroying  Jesus  secretly  and  promptly,  for 
they  feared  a  tumult  of  the  people  if  they  delayed  until  the 
passover. 

Vers.  3-9.  Meantime  Jesus  had  stayed  in  Bethany,  where 
one  day  as  they  were  at  a  supper  in  the  house  of  Simon  the 
leper,  a  woman  came  in  having  a  vial  of  very  precious  oint- 
ment, and  breaking  the  vial  she  poured  the  oil  upon  his  head 
(to  anoint  him  as  the  Christ).  When  some  who  were  present 
murmured  at  the  waste — for  the  oil  was  worth  more  than  a 
year's  wages  of  a  workman — Jesus  commended  her  deed;  but 
added  that  this  was  not  an  anointing  for  a  throne,  but  rather 
for  burial;  for  he  knew  already  of  the  fate  he  must  soon  undergo. 

i  Jn.  21;  Lk.  5:  4-9;  Ev.  Petri.  2  Lk.  8:  1-3.  »  C.  14.  *  15:  1-39. 

6  15:  40—16:  8. 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  193 

Vers.  10,  11.  As  the  priests  were  thus  seeking  how  to  seize 
Jesus,  Judas  Iscariot,  one  of  the  Twelve,  went  to  them  and 
offered  to  betray  him.  They  therefore  agreed  with  him  for 
money. 

Vers.  12-17.  On  the  day  when  the  Jews  sacrifice  the  pass- 
over  lamb  Jesus  proved  again  his  supernatural  foresight,  di- 
recting two  disciples  minutely  as  before  regarding  the  place  and 
preparations  for  celebrating  the  feast.  When  these  had  gone 
into  the  city  everything  befell  precisely  as  Jesus  had  predicted. 
The  preparations  were  made  in  a  large  upper  room  which  had 
been  kept  ready  for  the  Teacher. 

Vers.  18-21.  At  the  supper  Jesus  solemnly  announced 
his  impending  betrayal  by  one  of  the  Twelve,  declaring  that  his 
death  was  indeed  required  in  fulfillment  of  prophecy,  but  that 
this  does  not  lighten  the  guilt  of  the  traitor. 

Vers.  22-26.  The  disciples  then  resumed  their  repast. 
But  Jesus  took  a  loaf  and  pronouncing  the  blessing  on  the 
bread  he  broke  it  and  distributed  to  them,  saying,  Take  that 
which  I  now  give  as  if  it  were  my  own  body.  He  also  blessed 
and  distributed  a  cup,  saying,  Take  the  wine  which  I  now  pour 
out  to  you  as  if  it  were  my  blood.  Let  it  be  to  you  like  the 
covenant  of  blood  to  which  Moses  pledged  the  people  at  Sinai. 
For  I  shall  no  more  partake  of  the  banqueting  cup,  until  I  sit 
at  the  great  feast  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  So  they  went  forth 
again,  after  they  had  sung  the  passover  psalm,  to  the  mount  of 
Olives. 

Vers.  27-31.  Jesus  then  began  to  warn  them  of  the  deser- 
tion and  flight  to  which  he  knew  they  would  be  driven  by  his 
arrest,  and  promised  that  after  his  return  from  the  dead  he 
would  go  in  advance  of  them  to  Galilee.  Peter  began  to  insist 
that  he,  at  least,  would  not  prove  disloyal.  Then  Jesus  fore- 
told in  precise  detail  the  manner  of  the  denial  of  which  Peter 
was  destined  to  become  guilty  before  the  dawn.  But  Peter 
would  not  yield,  insisting  with  the  rest  that  nothing  could  over- 
come his  loyalty. 

Vers.  32-42.  So  they  came  to  an  enclosure  called  Geth- 
semane.  And  Jesus,  taking  with  him  the  three,  Peter,  James 
and  John,  began  a  vigil  of  prayer,  entreating  that  the  cup  of 
martyrdom  might  be  taken  away,  yet  asking  only  that  not  his 
will  but  his  Father's  be  done.  While  he  thus  prayed  the  dis- 
ciples were  overcome  with  sleep.  And  Jesus  came  thrice  to 
them,  bidding  Peter  especially  pray  against  the  approaching 
hour  of  trial.  But  they  still  slept  on  and  took  their  rest  till 
Jesus  finally  awoke  them  with  the  announcement  of  the  coming 
of  the  traitor. 


194  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

Vers.  43-52.  As  he  was  speaking  Judas  appeared,  having 
with  him  a  band  of  followers  from  the  Sanhedrin  armed  with 
swords  and  clubs;  and  advancing  he  saluted  Jesus  and  kissed 
him,  for  such  was  the  token  by  which  he  had  agreed  with  his 
followers  to  make  known  the  one  whom  they  should  seize.  So 
they  leaped  forth  from  covert  and  seized  him.  One  of  the  by- 
standers, however,  drew  a  sword  and  cut  off  the  ear  of  the  high 
priest's  servant.  Then  Jesus  protested  against  their  seizure 
of  him  thus  like  a  robber  at  midnight — showing  how  they  were 
but  fulfilling  the  scriptures.  Now  all  his  disciples  forsook  him 
and  fled;  but  a  certain  young  man  was  there  who  had  followed 
thither  from  his  bed,  having  the  sheet  wrapped  about  him. 
Him  also  they  seized;  but  he  left  the  sheet  in  their  hands  and 
fled  naked. 

Vers.  53-65.  So  they  led  Jesus  away  to  the  high  priest's 
house.  And  they  summoned  together  the  whole  Sanhedrin. 
But  Peter  had  followed  afar  off,  and  mingling  with  the  appari- 
tors sat  down  before  the  fire  which  they  had  kindled  in  the  court- 
yard. So  then  the  Sanhedrin,  when  they  were  come  together, 
sought  false  witness  against  Jesus.  And  some  testified  that 
he  had  said  I  will  destroy  this  material  temple,  and  replace  it 
in  three  days  with  a  spiritual  temple.  But  even  so  they  did 
not  agree.  At  last  the  high  priest  himself  stood  up  in  the 
midst  and  challenged  Jesus  to  say  whether  he  were  the  Christ. 
When  therefore  Jesus  answered  boldly,  I  am,  and  ye  shall  see 
me  hereafter  as  the  Judge  of  the  world,  coming  to  sit  upon  the 
divine  throne  of  judgment  on  the  clouds  of  heaven,  the  high 
priest  rent  his  garments,  saying,  Hear  the  blasphemy!  And  all 
condemned  him  to  death.  And  some  of  them  began  to  spit  upon 
Jesus,  and  covering  his  face  to  strike  him  and  say,  Prophesy. 
And  the  apparitors,  to  whom  they  delivered  him  again,  received 
him  with  cuffs. 

Vers.  66-72.  Now  as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  courtyard 
a  maidservant  recognized  him  as  of  Jesus'  disciples.  But  he 
denied  any  knowledge  of  him,  and  went  outside  into  the  vesti- 
bule. Again  she  saw  him  and  said  to  the  bystanders,  This  is 
one  of  them.  And  again  Peter  denied.  A  third  time,  when 
the  bystanders  themselves  were  suspicious  of  him,  Peter  pro- 
tested with  oaths  and  imprecations,  I  know  not  the  man.  And 
at  this  the  cock  crew  the  second  time,  as  Jesus  had  predicted, 
"Before  the  cock  crow  twice  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice."  And 
Peter  remembered  the  saying  and  wept. 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  195 


SUBDIVISION  A.    C  14.— CRITICISM 

The  narration  of  the  events  of  this  tragic  night  can  be  traced  back 
as  already  an  established  tradition  in  Corinth  ca.  55  a.d.  by  means  of 
I  Cor.  11:23,  where  common  familiarity  with  the  story  is  implied. 
The  marked  prominence  of  Peter  throughout  confirms  the  uniform 
testimony  of  tradition  that  it  represents  Peter's  story. 

Nevertheless,  we  have  unmistakable  evidence  of  redactional  recast- 
ing of  the  story,  and  the  interest  of  R,  as  of  other  evangelists,  is  primar- 
ily apologetic  and  serological,  and  only  secondarily  historical.  If  the 
historical  interest  is  here  at  its  maximum,  so  also  is  the  apologetic  and 
serological;  for  the  chapter  is  concerned  with  the  supreme  ritual  in- 
stitution of  the  Church,  in  regard  to  whose  celebration  and  significance 
no  less  than  three  great  controversies  raged  during  the  century  succeed- 
ing the  appearance  of  the  Gospels,  threatening  toward  the  close  of  the 
second  century  to  disrupt  East  from  West  entirely.  The  controversies 
were  the  so-called  Paschal,  or  Quartodeciman  controversies,  and  related 
to  the  observance  of  the  "fourteenth"  day  of  the  Jewish  month  Nisan 
as  the  anniversary  of  Jesus'  death.  Our  four  Gospels  fall  into  two  di- 
visions on  this  point,  John  on  the  one  side,  Mark  and  its  two  satellites 
on  the  other,  showing  the  same  difference  as  the  controversialists  them- 
selves. In  fact  each  party  to  the  controversy  maintained  the  agree- 
ment of  the  four  Gospels,  endeavoring  to  explain  conflicting  statements 
by  those  of  the  Gospel  or  Gospels  which  most  distinctly  enunciated  its 
own  view;  and  each  contestant  accused  his  opponents  of  "making  the 
Gospels  conflict"  by  applying  any  other  interpretation.  Modern  au- 
thorities no  longer  deny  that  the  conflict  exists;  but  differ  as  to  whether 
John,  the  Gospel  of  the  Asiatic  churches,  is  correct  in  dating  the  last 
supper  on  the  13th  Nisan,  and  consequently  denying  to  it  all  relation 
to  the  Jewish  Passover,  or  the  Synoptic,  which  here  all  follow  the  lead 
of  the  Roman  evangelist,  understood  to  represent  Petrine  tradition. 

In  Asia  appeal  was  made  to  the  Ephesian  Gospel,  with  its  repeated 
and  clear  indications  that  Jesus'  crucifixion,  not  his  institution  of  the 
Supper,  coincided  in  date  with  the  passover  (Jn.  13:  1,  29;  18:  28; 
19:  14-31).  This  Gospel,  as  we  see,  connects  the  Institution  of  the 
Eucharist  with  the  Breaking  of  Bread  in  Galilee  (Jn.  6:  50-56),  to  the 
complete  cancellation  of  the  story  of  the  Last  Supper  (Jn.  13).  But, 
at  least  in  the  first  period  of  the  controversy,  appeal  was  made  much 
more,  if  not  exclusively,  to  apostolic  testimony  and  practice  as  repre- 
sented in  the  person  of  the  aged  Polycarp,  a  native  of  "the  East"1 
(i.e.,  Syria),  born  in  69  a.d.,  and  a  Christian  from  infancy,  who  claimed 
to  have  celebrated  the  Christian  passover  as  a  commemoration  of 
Jesus'  death  on  the  14th  Nisan  "with  apostles."  Paul  himself  seems 
indeed  to  refer  to  such  observance  in  writing  from  Ephesus  to  Corinth 
at  Passover  ca.  55  a.d.  For  if  Jesus'  death  occurred  on  Nisan  15,  the 
day  after  the  putting  away  of  the  leaven,  and  the  resurrection  was 
fixed  as  having  occurred  on  Nisan  17,  the  day  after  "Firstfruits," 
which  in  Jewish  ritual  are  fixed  on  the  14th  and  16th  respectively,  it 
would  be  curiously  inappropriate  to  write  "Christ  our  Passover  is  cruci- 
fied for  us,  therefore  purge  out  the  old  leaven";  and  "Now  is  Christ 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  Firstfruits  of  them  that  are  asleep." 2 


i  So  in  the  Life,  by  Pioniua,  ca.  250  a.d.  *  I  Cor.  5:  7,  8;  15:  20. 


196  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

Paul,  therefore,  whom  neither  party  appealed  to,  seems  to  have  been 
Quartodeciman  in  practice. 

Finally  both  the  inherent  probabilities  of  the  case  and  many  surviv- 
ing traces  in  Mark's  own  narrative  make  it  extremely  improbable  that 
Jesus  was  put  to  death  on  the  very  day  which  the  authorities  were 
most  anxious  to  avoid  for  fear  of  popular  tumult  (Mk.  14:  2).  The 
indecent  and  horrifying  haste  with  which  their  Master  had  been  hurried 
to  the  cross  is  one  of  the  elements  of  the  tradition  reflected  in  all  the 
Gospels.  How  can  it  be  accounted  for,  if  not  as  Mark,  against  the  re- 
quirements of  his  own  representation,  accounts  for  it?  Doubtless  the 
oriental  Church,  where  Jewish  tradition  and  observance  was  relatively 
strong,  continued,  as  Paul  and  Polycarp  attest,  the  observance  of  the 
annual  rite  of  Passover;  Gal.  4:  10.  The  only  practicable  way  to  over- 
come the  Judaizing  influence  of  the  feast  in  these  communities  was  to 
alter  its  character  and  significance.  Such  is  the  course  we  find  actually 
adopted.  They  observed  "the  Lord's  Passover"  on  the  same  date  as 
"the  people"  (of  the  Jews),  commemorating  the  same  night  (Nisan 
14-15)  as  the  Redemption  feast  of  him  who  "through  death  overcame 
him  that  had  the  power  of  death  and  delivered  all  those  who  through 
fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage."  In  strict 
compliance  with  the  law, *  which  they  held  to  be  altered  in  nothing  save 
the  event  commemorated,  they  kept  this  night  of  the  first  full  moon 
of  the  (lunar)  year  as  the  anniversary  of  Jesus'  victory  over  death.  It 
was  kept  "a  night  of  vigil  unto  the  Lord"2  until  sunrise,  but  practice 
differed  as  to  the  hour  when  the  fast  was  broken  "because  the  Gospels 
contained  no  exact  statement  of  the  hour  at  which  Jesus  rose."3  In 
the  East  they  closed  it  "from  the  evening"  (of  Nisan  14) ;  in  Rome  "at 
cock-crowing"  (of  Easter  Sunday).  The  essence  of  the  difference  was 
that  Quartodecimans,  who  claimed  with  invincible  reasons  that  their 
practice  went  back  to  the  very  apostles  themselves,  celebrated  the 
night  of  the  crucifixion  itself  as  the  (lunar)  anniversary  of  Jesus'  resur- 
rection, admitting  no  interval  between  the  death  and  resurrection. 
Thus  it  was  in  reality  Jesus'  conquering  descent  into  the  underworld 
which  marked  for  them  the  moment  of  the  redemption,  a  conception 
still  reflected  in  the  curious  tradition  of  the  "bodies  of  the  saints"  re- 
leased by  the  earthquake  and  rending  of  the  rocks  at  Jesus'  death  in 
Mt.  27:  51-53.  Our  canonical  evangelist  knows  not  what  to  do  with 
these  premature  fruits  of  the  resurrection  escaped  upon  the  stage  before 
their  role,  and  so  compels  them  to  wait  none  knows  where  for  36  hours 
or  more,  until  "after  Jesus'  resurrection"  they  may  enter  into  the  holy 
city  and  appear  unto  many.  But  until  the  holy  sepulcher  tradition 
was  introduced,  claiming  the  earthquake  a  second  time  for  its  own  pur- 
poses,4 this  tradition,  like  that  of  P,  connected  the  victory  over  death 
with  Jesus'  descent  into  the  underworld,  and  not  with  his  return,  which 
was  simply  fixed  "on  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures,"5 
and  celebrated — so  far  as  commemorated  at  all — on  Nisan  16,  as  the 
Christian  "Firstfruits,"  when  by  his  return  to  earth  Jesus  became  "the 
firstfruits  of  them  that  slept."  This  date,  however,  was  not  fixed  by 
any  occurrence  to  which  the  Church  could  point.  It  was  an  inference 
from  "Scripture."8  The  fist  of  appearances  in  I  Cor.  15:  5-8  begins 
afterward,  and  is  independent.     It  culminates  at  Pentecost,  the  great 

1  Ex.  12:  1-42.  2  Ex.  12:  42. 

3  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  quoted  by  Drummond,  Authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  p.  471.  *  Mt.  28:  2.  <*  t  Cor.  15:  4. 

8  Lev.  23:  9-16  governs  the  primitive  Christian  calendar  (Acts  2:  1)  and  is 
probably  more  fundamental  to  I  Cor.  15:  4  than  Hos.  6:  2,  which  came  into  con- 
flict with  Jonah  1:  17  (Mt.  12:  40). 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  197 

"Lord's  day,"  which  always  fell  on  "the  first  day  of  the  week."1  For 
the  analysis  of  Mark  the  point  most  important  to  observe  is  that  the 
most  ancient  and  best  attested  institutional  observance  of  the  Church 
corresponds  with  Pauline  tradition  and  observance  in  ignoring  entirely 
the  tradition  of  the  sepulcher  and  all  that  pertains  to  it. 

Roman  practice  also  began  by  recognizing  with  certain  relics  of  Jew- 
ish observance  the  14th  Nisan;  but  it  was  held  to  be  impious  to  "ter- 
minate the  fast"  with  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  itself.  So  long  aa 
Jesus  had  remained  in  the  underworld  the  Church  must  commemorate 
by  fasting  the  period  when  "the  bridegroom"  was  taken  away  from 
them.  There  must  be  in  all  cases  an  interval  between  the  anniversary 
of  the  death  and  the  celebration  of  the  resurrection,  so  that  if  Nisan  14 
fell  on  a  Sunday,  Easter  could  not  take  place  till  the  Sunday  following. 
To  the  occidental  Church,  less  mystical,  more  pragmatic  than  the 
oriental,  not  the  descent  of  Jesus  into  the  underworld  marked  the 
moment  of  the  Redemption,  but  his  return  from  it.  The  Resurrection 
was  no  longer  the  overcoming  through  death  of  him  that  had  the  power 
of  death,  but  through  return  to  life;  and  this  return  to  life  was  supposed 
to  coincide  approximately  with  the  visit  of  the  women  to  the  sepulcher. 
According  to  Paul  and  "the  scriptures"  it  had  been  on  "the  third 
day."  It  was  therefore  decreed  an  outrage  to  Christian  propriety  to 
terminate  the  fast,  and  "celebrate  the  mystery  of  the  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion on  any  other  than  the  Lord's  day,"2  and  after  almost  two  cen- 
turies of  strife,  largely  by  the  personal  authority  of  the  emperor  Con- 
stantine,  the  whole  Church,  save  for  a  few  outstanding  recalcitrants,  was 
induced  at  Nicaea  to  adopt  this  rule  of  observance. 

Quartodecimanism  has  therefore  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
rite  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread.  So  far  as  the  mere  practice  of  this  rite 
is  concerned,  that  might  well  go  back,  as  the  Ephesian  Gospel  repre- 
sents, to  the  incident  of  Galilee.  But  it  proves  much  regarding  the 
date  of  the  Lord's  death,  the  real  "redemption"  by  "the  blood  of  the 
Lamb."  That  was  certainly  associated  from  earliest  times  by  the 
entire  oriental  Church  with  the  Passover;  and  only  where  the  Redemp- 
tion came  to  be  associated,  as  in  the  West,  with  the  Sepulcher  legend, 
instead  of  the  Death  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  did  the  Sunday  after  the  anni- 
versary become  the  Christian  Feast  of  Redemption.  Thereafter  not 
unnaturally  the  weekly3  institution  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread  was  de- 
clared to  be  the  Christian  fulfillment  of  the  Jewish  feast. 

The  effort  of  R  in  recasting  the  ancient  Petrine  tradition  is  anti- 
Judaistic.  In  14:  25  he  employs  phrases  from  the  Jewish  ritual  seem- 
ingly for  no  other  purpose  than  to  declare  that  the  Jewish  feast  is  now 
superseded.  Not  as  in  the  Ephesian  Gospel  and  I  Cor.  5:  6,  7,  where 
the  redemption  which  supersedes  that  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt  and 
the  Destroying  Angel  is  through  the  blood  of  the  cross.  Here  the  re- 
demption is  through  the  blood  of  the  sacramental  cup,  the  blood  about 
to  be  shed  "for  many."  In  John  the  dying  lamb  of  God  makes  the 
slaughter  of  the  passover  lamb  henceforth  meaningless.  In  Mark  the 
Eucharist  itself  supersedes  the  Passover.  For  this  reason  Mark  intro- 
duces even  the  singing  of  the  Hallel  into  the  ritual.  He  does  not 
peremptorily  forbid  the  celebration  of  the  annual  rite  (even  Anicetua 
at  Rome  was  tolerant  of  Polycarp's  practice);  but  he  makes  Jesus  on 
Nisan  14  institute  a  new  observance  of  more  frequent  recurrence,  while 


1  Lev.  23:  16.  If  dependence  could  be  placed  on  the  round  "forty  days"  of 
Acts  1:3  we  should  probably  obtain  by  reckoning  backward  from  Pentecost  the 
traditional  date  of  the  first  appearance,  viz,  some  ten  days  after  the  crucifixion. 

2  Eusebius,  H.  E.  Ill,  xxiii.  3 1  Cor.  16:  2;  Acta  20:  7;  Rev.  1:  10. 


198  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

he  refuses  to  join  the  disciples  in  partaking  of  the  old.  By  this  repre- 
sentation R  shows  very  plainly  what  attitude  in  his  view  should  be 
taken  on  a  question  soon  to  become  the  burning  question  of  the  age. 
Strange  as  it  may  seem,  he  does  not  even  include  the  injunction  at- 
tested by  Paul  himself,  that  the  Breaking  of  Bread  should  be  observed 
as  a  memorial  of  Jesus'  death! 

As  respects  the  values  of  the  rest  of  the  tradition  embodied  in  c.  14 
we  may  perhaps  infer  from  the  manner  in  which  the  story  of  Gethsem- 
ane  dilates  upon  Jesus'  "watching  unto  prayer,"  in  contrast  with 
the  weakness  of  the  disciples,  that  it  stood  connected  in  church  use 
with  the  institution  of  the  Vigil,  of  which  we  have  already  spoken. 

In  the  East  this  vigil  symbolized  the  watch  for  the  Coming  of  the 
Lord.  It  was  kept  on  the  night  before  the  day  of  the  Passover  (Nisan 
14-15)  and  ended  with  the  greeting  of  Resurrection  and  keeping  of  the 
festal  day.  It  had  as  the  twofold  occasion  of  its  observance  "that  in 
that  night  Christ  returned  after  his  passion,  and  that  he  was  in  it  to 
receive  his  kingdom."1  Of  this  observance,  too,  we  seem  to  have  traces 
in  the  figures  from  the  vigil  of  Passover  applied  by  Paul  in  I  Thess. 
5:  4-10  and  Eph.  5:  13,  14;  6:  14,  15.  So  also  in  the  Q  passage  em- 
bodied by  Mark  in  13:  33-37  and  in  the  legend  of  the  Walking  on  the 
Sea,  Mk.  6:  48.  But  in  the  story  of  Gethsemane,  while  the  night  of  vigil 
is  the  same  in  date  (Nisan  14-15),  it  has  lost  all  connection  both  with 
Christ's  victory  over  death  and  his  coming  again  in  his  kingdom.  It 
is  now  purely  general,  or  associated  only  with  the  self-deceptive  boast 
of  Peter  and  the  Twelve.  The  Church  must  "Watch  and  pray  lest  ye 
enter  into  temptation."  Similar  connection  is  made  with  the  observ- 
ances of  fasting,  mourning,  and  vigil  in  the  post-canonical  gospels,2 
whose  authors  dilate  on  the  fasting,  mourning,  and  tears  of  the  disciples 
before  the  message  of  resurrection  comes. 

To  these  fundamental  elements  of  Petrine  tradition  R  adds  two  para- 
graphs whose  motive  is  different:  (1)  The  Prediction  of  Betrayal,  vers. 
17-21,  whose  value  is  to  reenforce  the  evangelist's  favorite  proof  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ  by  his  supernatural  gifts,  while  refuting  the  intima- 
tion that  his  suffering  was  without  his  own  clear  foreknowledge  and  in- 
tention; (2)  the  Trial,  vers.  53-65.  Both  these  are  inconsistent  with 
demonstrable  fact.  The  disciples,  in  spite  of  the  fourth  evangelist's 
view,  were  not  in  a  mood  after  being  warned  of  the  intended  betrayal, 
especially  if  the  individual  were  distinctly  pointed  out,  to  allow  the 
traitor  to  proceed  unhindered.  As  regards  the  trial-scene,  it  is  only  too 
apparent  that  the  Church  had  no  witness  to  whom  it  could  refer,  while 
the  description  itself  reflects  much  more  of  anti-Jewish  apologetic  than 
of  the  actual  historical  conditions  (see  on  vers.  53-65). 

As  we  should  anticipate,  traces  of  the  influence  of  Q  in  c.  14  are  of 
the  meagerest  possible,  only  ver.  21  seeming  to  echo  Mt.  18:  7  =  Lk.  17: 1. 


1  Drummond,  op.  cit.,  p.  472,  quoting  Lactant,  Div.  Inst.,  vii.  19. 

2  Ev.  Hebr.,  fragt.  18,  and  Ev.  Petr.,  xiv.  59.    Preuschen,  Antileg. 


14:  1, 2  THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  199 


14XT0W  after  two  days  was  (the  feast  of) 
_LN  the  passover  and  the  unleavened 
bread:  and  the  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  sought  how  they  might  take  him 
2  with  subtilty,  and  kill  him:  for  they  said, 
Not  during  the  feast,  lest  haply  there  shall 
be  a  tumult  of  the  people. 


Vers.l,  2=Mt. 
26:  l-5=Lk. 
22:1,  2;  cf. 
Jn.  12:  1 
(P) 


Vers.  1,  2,  10,  11.  The  Plot  against  Jesus.  The  interjection  of  the 
episode  of  the  Anointing  (vers.  3-9),  in  interruption  of  the  connection, 
is  characteristic  of  R's  mode  of  composition.  The  original  narrative 
proceeds  in  logical  order  to  relate  the  story  of  betrayal  and  death  in 
vers.  10,  11,  14ff. 

Ver.  1.  The  date  is  Nisan  13,  Thursday  (the  crucifixion  falling  on 
Friday).  It  is  expressed  in  correct  terms,  Passover  day,  Nisan  15  (which 
began  at  6  p.m.  on  the  preceding  evening,  i.e.,  the  evening  of  Nisan  14), 
being  the  first  of  the  seven  days  of  Unleavened  Bread.  The  intention  is 
to  show  why  the  conspirators  were  pressed  for  time.  They  had  only  this 
day  and  the  following  with  the  single  intervening  night  in  which  to 
carry  out  their  plot.  In  ver.  12  (R)  the  date  is  incorrectly  expressed 
and  conflicts  with  ver.  1.  See  comment.  The  chief  priests  and  scribes. 
Not  a  formal  assembly  of  the  Sanhedrin,  which  would  include  "the 
elders  of  the  people"  (cf.  11:27  and  ver.  53).  Matthew  amends  to 
obtain  this  sense. 

Vers.  3-9.  The  Anointing  in  Bethany.  The  unique  importance  at- 
tached to  this  episode  (ver.  9)  is  not  a  mere  reward  of  the  woman.  It 
is  intended  to  contrast  her  insight  into  the  true  worth  of  Jesus  with  the 
dullness  of  the  Twelve.  R  introduces  it  here  as  a  sort  of  pendant  to  the 
Prediction  of  Betrayal  in  vers.  17-21.  The  authentic  utterance  of 
Jesus  ends  with  ver.  7.  The  rest,  including  the  prediction  of  death 
and  (unanointed)  burial,  and  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  through- 
out the  world,  belongs  to  the  significance  found  in  the  event  by  the 
later  reflection  of  the  Church.  It  is  possible  that  the  woman  intended 
her  costly  offering  as  a  tribute  to  Jesus'  Messiahship  (Messiah  =  "  the 
Anointed")  and  assumed  as  the  rightful  prerogative  of  her  faith  the 
part  of  Samuel  in  the  secret  anointing  of  Saul  (I  Sam.  9:  15,  16;  10:  1). 
If  so,  we  should  prefer  to  adopt  a  hint  from  Jn.  10:  40 — 1 1 :  2  (cf .  1 :  28) ; 
12:  1-8  and  conclude  that  the  real  Bethany  of  this  scene  was  "Bethany 
beyond  Jordan,"  the  home  of  Mary  and  Martha  (Lk.  10:  38^12),  where 
an  act  of  the  sort  would  account  for  the  enthusiastic  following  with 
which  Jesus  entered  Jerusalem,  but  would  be  less  likely  to  lead  to  im- 
mediate arrest  and  execution.  Jesus'  attitude  toward  it  corresponds 
closely  to  that  he  assumes  toward  Peter's  "Confession,"  though  the 
tone  is  far  gentler  and  full  of  pathos.  He  does  not  reject  the  tribute  of 
faith,  but  by  the  clear  forewarning  of  the  fate  that  confronts  him,  he 
seeks  to  turn  away  his  followers'  thoughts  from  "the  things  that  be  of 
men."  In  its  nucleus  the  story  is  certainly  historical,  whatever  the 
source  from  which  R  has  gathered  it.  In  its  ascription  to  a  woman  of 
the  honorable  roles  of  Peter  the  confessor  and  John  the  Baptist  the 
anointer  of  the  Christ,  we  are  reminded  of  certain  features  in  the  Special 
Source  of  Luke.  At  all  events  this  simple  anointing  to  the  Messsiah- 
ship  by  the  devotion  of  a  woman  disciple  must  antedate  historically 
Mark's  apologetic  narrative  of  the  anointing  by  the  Baptist-Elias,  with 
its  supernatural  appearances  and  Voice  from  heaven. 


200 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


14: 3-8 


And  while  he  was  in  Beth- 
any in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  as  he 
sat  at  meat,  there  came  a  woman  having 
*an  alabaster  cruse  of  ointment  of  Spike- 
nard very  costly ;  (and)  she  brake  the  cruse, 
and  poured  it  over  his  head.  But  3there 
were  some  that  had  indignation  among 
themselves,  (saying,)  To  what  purpose 
hath  this  waste  of  the  ointment  been  made? 
For  this  ointment  might  have  been  sold 
for  above  three  hundred  4pence,  and  given 
to  the  poor.  And  they  murmured  against 
her.  But  Jesus  said,  Let  her  alone;  why 
trouble  ye  her?  she  hath  wrought  a  good 
work  on  me.  For  ye  have  the  poor  always 
with  you,  and  whensoever  ye  will  ye  can 
do  them  good :  but  me  ye  have  not  always. 
She  hath  done  what  she  could: 
she  hath  anointed  my  body  aforehand  for 


1  Or,  a  flask. 

2  Gr.  pistic  nard,  pistic  being  perhaps  a  local  name.    Others 
take  it  to  mean  genuine;  others,  liquid. 

8  /3  var.  his  disciples  were  displeased  and  said. 
4  Or,  shillings. 


Vers.  3-9=Mt. 

26:6-13=L,k. 

7:376,  386,46 
(X) 
(Jn.  12:  2-8) 


R 
(Cf.  16: 1) 


Ver.  3.  The  localization  "Bethany,"  "house  of  Simon  the  (healed) 
leper,"  seems  to  mark  originality,  but  scarcely  points  to  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Jerusalem  (see  note  on  11:  1  and  above  on  vers.  3-9).  Simon 
is  one  of  the  points  of  connection  with  Lk.  7 :  36-50,  but  in  this  feature 
the  dependence  seems  to  be  on  the  part  of  Luke.  It  is  certainly  so  in 
regard  to  the  ointment,  which  is  utterly  inappropriate  to  the  story  of 
the  Penitent  Harlot.  This  feature  is  only  lamely  attached  in  Luke  by 
a  clause  appended  to  vers.  37  and  38,  and  by  ver.  46.  The  complete 
difference  of  the  two  incidents  in  their  fundamental  significance  becomes 
apparent  by  the  removal  of  this  incongruous  trait  wherein  Luke  seeks 
to  atone  for  his  cancellation  of  the  Markan  story.  It  also  sets  in  its 
true  light  the  recombination  effected  in  Jn.  12:  1-8.  Spikenard.  An 
unknown  term;  see  var.  rendering.  The  transfer  of  this  rare  designa- 
tion to  the  parallels  is  a  sure  proof  of  dependence.  Over  his  head. 
Luke,  who  transfers  the  anointing  as  an  embellishment  to  his  incident 
of  the  Penitent  Harlot,  substitutes  "his  feet,"  as  an  intended  refine- 
ment of  honor,  a  trait  retained  in  Jn.  12:  3.  But  here  it  is  inappro- 
priate. Mary's  intention  is  to  show  the  utmost — perhaps  even  messianic 
— honor  to  her  guest.  There  is  no  occasion  in  her  case  for  the  self- 
humiliation  of  the  Penitent  Harlot,  who  does  not  venture  to  approach 
the  head  of  the  recumbent  guest,  and  when  unwittingly  her  tears  have 
fallen  on  his  feet  hastily  wipes  them  off  with  her  hair  as  though  a  de- 
filement to  the  prophet. 

Ver.  5.  They  (see  var.  ver.  4)  murmured  (Gr.,  "roared")  against 
her.     Jn.  12:  6  makes  Judas  the  scapegoat. 

Ver.  8  develops  the  last  clause  of  ver.  7  in  a  more  specific  and  definite 
application,  a  process  carried  a  stage  further  in  Jn.  12:  7.    This  looks 


14:9-12 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


201 


9  the  burying.  And  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
Wheresoever  the  gospel  shall  be  preached 
throughout  the  whole  world,  that  also 
which  this  woman  hath  done  shall  be  spoken 
of  for  a  memorial  of  her. 

10  And  Judas  Iscariot,  %e 
that  was  one  of  the  twelve,  went  away  unto 
the  chief  priests,  that  he  might  deliver  him 

11  unto  them.  And  they,  when  they  heard 
it,  were  glad,  and  promised  to  give  him 
money.  And  he  sought  how  he  might 
conveniently  deliver  him  (unto  them) . 

12  And  on  the  first  day  of  un- 
leavened bread,  2when  they  sacrificed  the 
passover,  his  disciples  say  unto  him,  Where 
wilt  thou  that  we  go  and  make  ready  that 


1  Gr.  the  one  of  the  twelve. 

3  Sinaitic  Syriac,  when  the  passover  was  eaten. 


Vers.  10,ll=Mt. 
26: 14-16= 
Lk.  22:3-6 

(P) 


Vers.l2-16=Mt. 

26:17-19= 

Lk.  22:7-13 

R 

(Cf.  11:  1-6) 


forward  to  the  incident  of  Mk.  16:  1,  though  in  Jn.  19:  39,  40  the  story 
takes  a  wholly  different  and  inconsistent  form.  The  probability  of  the 
alien  origin  of  ver.  8  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  we  have  no  evidence 
that  the  custom  of  anointing  the  dead  obtained  among  the  Jews.  Cer- 
tainly it  could  not  be  proposed  on  the  third  day  after  complete  and 
orderly  sepulture  (16:  1).  The  sense  of  the  utterance  is  practically 
equivalent  to  8:  31-33:  Not  a  throne  but  a  sepulcher  awaits  him  whom 
you  wish  to  proclaim  the  "Anointed." 

Ver.  9.  For  a  memorial  of  her.  Wellhausen  rightly  asks,  Why,  then, 
is  not  her  name  given?  Another  indication  that  Jn.  12:  1-8  employs 
some  traditional  elements  not  given  in  Mark.  Luke  clearly  attaches 
no  such  importance  as  Mark  to  the  command  of  ver.  9. 

Vers.  10,  11.  R  does  not  make  it  very  apparent  why  he  inserts  vers. 
3-9  at  just  this  point.  It  would  hardly  stand  here,  however,  if  not 
understood  to  affect  in  some  way  the  conduct  of  Judas,  which  is  not 
attributed  to  avarice  as  in  Matthew  and  John.  The  collocation  recalls 
8:  32,  33:  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  is  an  "offense"  to  Judas.  The 
actual  motive  of  the  betrayer  has  often  been  made  the  subject  of  ro- 
mantic speculation,  but  the  sources  do  not  enable  us  to  go  beyond  the 
general  statement,  applicable  to  all  the  Twelve  in  greater  or  less  degree, 
that  they  were  no  longer  in  complete  harmony  with  Jesus'  ideal,  and 
were  beginning  to  allow  considerations  of  personal  safety  to  shake  their 
former  resolution.  Where  desertion  begins,  someone  generally  carries 
it  to  the  full  length  of  betrayal. 

Vers.  12-16.  Preparations  for  the  Passover.  The  object  of  R  in 
this  paragraph  is  to  show  that  the  sacrament  instituted  by  Jesus  was 
intended  to  displace  the  Jewish  Passover.  The  fact  observed  by  B. 
Weiss1  that  it  is  "the  only  connected  passage  drawn  by  Luke  from 
Mark  in  the  whole  passion-story"  is  indicative  of  its  origin.  Equally 
so  is  the  incorrectness  of  its  date  (ver.  12).  This  is  both  erroneous  in 
form  (the  passover  lambs  were  "sacrificed"  on  the  day  before  the  first 


1  Quellen  des  Lucas,  p.  60. 


202  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       14: 13-16 


13  thou  mayest  eat  the  passover?  And  he 
sendeth  two  of  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Go  into  the  city,  and  there  shall  meet 
you  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water:  fol- 

14  low  him ;  and  wheresoever  he  shall  enter  in, 
say  to  the  goodman  of  the  house,  The 
1Master  saith,  Where  is  my  guest-chamber, 
where  I  shall  eat  the  passover  with  my  dis- 

15  ciples?  And  he  will  himself  shew  you  a 
large  upper  room  furnished   (and)   ready: 

16  and  there  make  ready  for  us.  And  the 
disciples  went  forth,  and  came  into  the 
city,  and  found  as  he  had  said  unto  them: 
and  they  made  ready  the  passover. 

1  Or,  Teacher. 


of  Unleavened  Bread),  so  that  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  corrects  to  "when 
the  passover  was  eaten,"  and  is  in  conflict  with  ver.  1.  Omit  this  para- 
graph together  with  the  intercalation  vers.  3-9,  and  the  Petrine  tradi- 
tion of  vers.  1,  2,  10,  11,  17ff.  falls  into  complete  agreement  with  Jn. 
13:  1,  29;  18:  28;  19:  14T31  and  with  the  intrinsic  probabilities.  The 
story  of  "the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed"  related  originally  not  to 
a  double  but  a  single  series  of  events,  beginning  with  the  conspiracy, 
proceeding  with  the  supper  and  Jesus'  disclosure  of  the  plot,  and  end- 
ing with  its  execution.  The  interjected  date  of  ver.  12  and  the  story 
of  miraculous  guidance  of  the  two  disciples  in  their  preparations  of  the 
passover,  vers.  13-16,  emanate  from  the  desire  to  present  the  sacra- 
ment as  superseding  the  observance  of  the  14th  Nisan. 

Vers.  13-15.  Cf.  11: 1-6.  In  both  cases  R  means  the  directions  to 
be  understood  as  evidences  of  Jesus'  supernatural  knowledge.  We 
might,  perhaps,  discount  this  and  suppose  a  preconcerted  arrangement 
of  Jesus  with  friends  unknown  to  the  Twelve  in  Jerusalem;  but  the 
residuum  of  historical  tradition — if  such  it  be — would  be  meager,  and 
hard  to  reconcile  with  the  apprehension  of  danger  which  brings  the 
company  forth  again  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  before  the  night  is  over. 
A  more  probable  nucleus  of  fact  is  R's  knowledge  of  the  traditional 
"upper  room"  (Acts  1:  13)  to  which  the  present  story  gives  added 
sanctity  as  chosen  and  consecrated  by  the  act  of  Jesus  himself. 

Yer.  15.  Furnished.  (Gr.,  "spread"),  i.e.,  with  mats  or  pallets  on 
which  to  recline;  whether  to  eat,  or  to  rest  for  the  night.  The  "table" 
of  Lk.  22:  21  is  a  mere  tabouret  on  which  the  common  great  dish  is 
placed  into  which  all  dip. 

Vers.  17-21.  Denunciation  of  the  Traitor.  Few  instances  can  sur- 
pass this  of  the  gradual  transformation  of  general  statements  after- 
ward looked  upon  as  supernatural  intimations,  into  close  and  minute 
predictions  of  the  future.  The  Luke  source,  generally  preferable 
throughout  the  passion  story,  appears  to  have  had  no  such  element. 
At  all  events  the  only  traces  of  it  in  Luke  consist  of  a  bare  clause  or 
two  from  Mark  appended  in  22:  21-23  to  the  general  warning  of  the 
impending  catastrophe  which  continues  in  vers.  31-38.  The  intro- 
duction of  the  prediction  involves  all  the  narratives  in  inextricable 
difficulty  to  answer  the  question,  When  did  the  traitor  make  his  exit; 


I4t 17-21 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


20C 


17 
18 


19 


20 


21 


And  when  it  was  evening 
he  cometh  with  the  twelve.  And  as  they 
*sat  and  were  eating,  Jesus  said,  Verily  I 
say  unto  you,  One  of  you  shall  betray  me, 
(even)  he  that  eateth  with  me.  They  be- 
gan to  be  sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto  him 
one  by  one,  Is  it  I?  And  he  said  unto  them, 
(It  is)  one  of  the  twelve,  he  that  dippeth 
with  me  in  the  dish.  For  the  Son  of  man 
goeth,  even  as  it  is  written  of  him :  but  woe 
unto  that  man  through  whom  2[the  Son  of 
man]  is  betrayed!  good  were  it  3for  that 
man  if  he  had  not  been  born. 


1  Gr.  reclined. 

3  Gr.  for  him  if  that  man. 


2  0  var.  omit  [  ]. 


Vers.l7-21=Mt. 
26:20-34= 
Lk.  22:14, 
21-23 

R(Q?) 
(Cf.  Mt.  18:  7= 
Lk.  17: 1) 


and  why  does  he  go  unhindered?  The  increasing  definiteness  of  the 
exposure  only  increases  this  difficulty,  which  is  not  adequately  met  by 
Mark's  introduction  of  ver.  21,  nor  by  the  Johannine  representation 
that  Jesus  orders  and  directs  even  the  betrayal  itself.  We  are  com- 
pelled to  regard  the  whole  representation  as  a  legendary  development 
on  the  basis  of  Ps.  41:  9.  The  simplest  form  is  that  of  Lk.  22:  21  in 
which  the  "prophecy"  becomes  part  of  Jesus'  warning  of  his  impend- 
ing fate.  In  Mark  it  develops  into  the  definite  charge,  "One  of  you 
will  betray  me,"  while  Luke's  "questioning  among  themselves"  becomes 
a  questioning  of  Jesus  by  each  in  turn.  R  adds  a  Q  saying  (Mt.  18:  7  = 
Lk.  17:  1)  to  depict  the  enormity  of  the  offense.  Matthew  develops 
still  further.  Judas  specifically  asks,  Is  it  I?,  and  receives  an  answer 
which  if  not  incriminating  was  at  least  evasive.  Finally  Jn.  13:  21-27 
makes  its  own  mysterious  authority  the  confidant  to  whom  Jesus  con- 
veys definite  designation  of  the  traitor,  Peter  then  being  admitted  to 
the  secret! 

Ver.  18.  And  as  they  sat  and  were  eating.  Cf.  ver.  22.  R  borrows 
the  phrase  without  cancelling  later. 

Ver.  19.     Is  it  I  ?    Render,  "Surely  it  is  not  I?" 

Ver.  20.  He  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  one  dish.  A  figurative 
expression  for  "my  most  intimate  friend,"  equivalent  to  Luke  "whose 
hand  is  with  me  on  the  table"  or  Ps.  41 :  9  "which  did  eat  of  my  bread." 
In  Jn.  13:  26  it  becomes  real  action. 

Ver.  21.  An  adaptation  of  Q  (Mt.  18:  6,  7  =  Lk.  17:  1,  2)  to  fit  the 
case  of  Judas.  For  the  "occasions  of  stumbling"  which  "must  needs 
come,"  R  substitutes  the  betrayal.  The  Son  of  man  (this  title  is 
used  by  Mark  where  the  passion  is  involved)  must  needs  suffer,  because 
so  "it  is  written  of  him." 

Vers.  22-26.  Institution  of  the  Eucharist.  The  rite  instituted  by 
Jesus  on  "the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed"  is  attested  along  with 
the  words  themselves,  still  employed  in  current  ritual  in  I  Cor.  1 1 :  23-25 
as  "from  (the  time  of)  the  Lord."  The  interpretative  words  alluding 
to  "the  blood  of  the  covenant"  of  Ex.  24:  8  may  be  due  to  ritual  addi- 
tion, as  well  as  the  application  "for  you,"  which  Mark  assimilates  to 
Is.  53:  11  "many";  but  there  is  no  justification  for  questioning  the 
command,  "This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  nor  the  comparison,  "This 
is  my  body.    This  is  my  blood."    Jesus  gave  his  followers  a  memorial 


204  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      14:22-24 


22  And  as  they  were  eating, 
he  took  xbread,  and  when  he  had  blessed, 
he  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said, 

23  Take  ye:  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  a 
cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he 

24  gave  to  them  rand  they  all  drank  of  it.  And 
he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  2the 

1  Or,  a  loaf.  2  Or,  the  testament. 


Vers.22-25=Mt. 
26:26-29= 
Lk.  22:15-20 

(P) 
Cf.  Ex.  24:  8;  Is. 
53:  11 


rite.  Not  indeed  a  sacrament,  for  the  conception  of  a  mystical  appro- 
priation of  the  life  of  the  Redeemer,  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  a 
sacrament,  belongs  to  the  element  of  Greek  mystery-religion,  and  does 
not  find  its  way  into  Christian  thought  save  through  the  experience  of 
Paul.  Jesus  gives  his  followers  a  reminder  and  a  parable.  It  is  not 
new,  but  simply  a  direction  to  continue  the  practice  which  had  given  a 
household  unity  to  their  little  brotherhood  thus  far,  and  on  one  memo- 
rable occasion  in  Galilee  had  extended  it  to  the  multitude.  In  continu- 
ing it  Jesus  wishes  them  to  recall  the  spirit  of  that  occasion  of  giving 
without  reserve.  The  point  of  comparison  lies  in  the  willingness  of 
the  self-surrender.  In  a  sense  the  representation  was  true  (though 
subsequently  exaggerated  to  a  degree  which  leaves  no  room  for  the 
agonizing  prayer  of  Gethsemane)  that  Jesus  laid  down  his  life  "of  him- 
self." He  had  undertaken  his  championship  of  the  cause  of  the  dis- 
inherited sons  in  Jerusalem  in  full  consciousness  of  the  perils  involved. 
Now  that  the  end  was  apparent — for  this  no  supernatural  insight  was 
required — he  would  have  it  remembered  that  his  life  was  given  freely 
like  the  food  in  Galilee,  not  taken  from  him. 

Ver.  22.  As  they  were  eating.  A  new  beginning  without  reference 
to  ver.  18.  At  the  (ordinary)  evening  meal — not  the  passover  supper, 
which  would  have  presented  the  closer  symbol  of  the  slain  lamb — Jesus 
assumed  his  usual  part  as  dispenser  of  the  food.  But  on  this  occasion 
made  the  loaf  a  symbol  of  his  body.  Its  destruction  should  not  be  a 
dissolution  but  a  stronger  union  of  the  brotherhood  by  as  much  as  the 
sacrifice  made  for  its  sake  was  now  greater.  Paul  adds  that  Jesus 
directed  the  continuance  of  the  rite  of  the  Breaking  of  Bread  in  memory 
of  him.  In  respect  to  the  cup  (I  Cor.  1 1 :  25)  the  words  may  well  be 
an  assimilation  to  ver.  24.  They  can  hardly  be  unauthentic  in  respect 
to  the  Breaking  of  Bread. 

Ver.  24.  The  allusion  is  to  the  ancient  rite  of  blood  covenant,  by 
participation  in  the  same  blood,  whether  by  drinking,  transfusion,  or 
otherwise.  In  the  story  of  Ex.  24  the  altar  representing  Yahweh  has 
one  half  the  blood  sprinkled  on  it,  while  the  other  half  is  sprinkled  on 
the  people.  The  agreement  entered  into  becomes  thus  literally  a  life- 
partnership.  Paul  and  perhaps  R  have  in  mind  a  similar  mystical 
union  of  the  disciples  with  Christ.  But  the  union  intended  in  the  insti- 
tution is  of  the  disciples  among  one  another  (cf.  Lk.  22:  17).  The  rite  is 
thus  properly  called  a  "communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ"  (I  Cor. 
10:  16,  17).  The  ancient  liturgy  of  the  Didache  (c.  ix.)  emphasizes  no 
point  but  this  of  reunion,  and  the  implication  of  ver.  27  (see  note  be- 
low) is  that  the  mind  of  Jesus  is  now  occupied  with  the  impending 
"scattering"  of  his  "flock,"  for  whose  "gathering"  again  he  labors  to 
provide. 

Mark  obscures  the  covenant  idea  by  attaching  that  of  expiation 
through  the  addition  of  the  clause  "which  is  poured  out  for  many,"  a 


14:25-27         THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  205 


25  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many.  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  I  will  no  more  drink  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  when  I 
drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

26  And  when  they  had  sung  a 
hymn,  they  went  out  unto  the  mount  of 
Olives. 

27  And  Jesus  saith  unto  them, 
All  ye  shall  be  Offended:  for  it  is  written, 
I  will  smite  the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep 

1  Gr.  caused  to  stumble. 


Ver.  26=Mt.  26: 
30 

R 


Vers.27-31=Mt. 
26:31-36= 
Lk.  22:33,34 

R(P) 


reference  to  Is.  53:  11;  cf.  10:  45.  No  such  thought  appears  in  Paul, 
nor  is  it  intended  by  Jesus. 

Ver.  25.  This  verse  appears  twice  in  Luke  (22:  15  =  22: 18)  and  cer- 
tainly suggests  by  its  form,  though  not  of  course  in  the  intention  of  the 
canonical  evangelist,  the  sense:  My  hope  of  celebrating  this  passover 
with  you  is  to  be  disappointed.  My  consolation  is  that  I  shall  partake 
of  that  greater  redemption  feast  it  only  foreshadows,  which  Messiah  is 
to  celebrate  in  his  kingdom.  For  our  canonical  evangelists  it  sets  the 
seal  of  discontinuance  upon  the  Jewish  rite.  Fruit  of  the  vine.  A 
phrase  from  the  Blessing  of  the  Cup  in  Jewish  ritual.  If  this  was,  as 
we  contend,  the  evening  of  Nisan  13,  the  meal  would  be  the  last  supper 
before  the  passover  banquet,  and  would  be  celebrated  by  use  of  the 
Kiddush1  or  ritual  of  prayer,  breaking  of  bread  (leavened),  blessing 
and  distribution  of  a  cup  of  wine  by  the  head  of  the  household. 

Ver.  26.  R  introduces  the  singing  of  the  Hallel,  which  belonged  to 
the  passover  ritual.  Probably  the  change  of  scene  from  the  upper 
room  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  also  part  of  the  editorial  revision.  See 
on  vers.  12-17. 

Vers.  27-31.  Predictions  of  Desertion  and  Denial.  The  contrast 
with  the  non-Mark  element  of  Luke  is  characteristic.  Luke's  source 
continues  the  thought  which  we  have  found  inherent  in  the  institution 
of  the  "Communion,"  viz,  Jesus'  death  to  become  a  means  of  uniting 
instead  of  dissipating  the  brotherhood.  Lk.  22:  31,  32,  35-38  antici- 
pates the  "scattering,"  implying  some  individual  failure  of  Peter, 
which,  however,  is  more  than  atoned  for  by  Jesus'  dependence  on  him  to 
rally  the  deserters.  To  this  unique  material  Luke  attaches  in  vers.  33, 34 
an  abridgment  of  Mark's  Prediction  of  Peter's  Denial,  vers.  29-31. 
Mark's  corresponding  paragraph  covers  all  the  ground  of  Jesus'  anxious 
anticipation  for  his  scattered  flock  by  the  bare  citation  of  the  fulfilled 
prophecy,  Zech.  13:  7,  substitutes  for  the  rdle  of  Peter  in  rallying  the  de- 
serters a  promise  of  Jesus  to  fulfill  this  work  in  his  own  person  by  going 
before  them  into  Galilee,  and  follows  this  with  a  detailed  prediction  of 
the  circumstances  of  Peter's  Denial.  The  motive  in  the  one  case  is 
historical,  in  the  other  apologetic.  Luke's  source  gives  us  our  most 
valuable  insight  into  the  actual  scene  referred  to  by  Paul  (I  Cor.  15:  5) 
which  led  to  the  realization  of  Jesus'  hope,  but  which  has  been  sup- 
pressed in  Mark  as  we  have  it.  Mark  (R)  gives  us  his  own  development 
of  Petrine  tradition  to  prove  how  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the  desertion 


1  On  the   practice  and   ritual  of  Kiddush,  see   s.v.  in   Hamburger's  Realency- 
klopadie,  and  G.  H.  Box  in  Journ.  of  Theol.  Studies,  Apr.,  1902. 


206 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      14:28-32 


28  shall  be  scattered  abroad.  How- 
beit,  after  I  am  raised  up,  I  will  go  before 

29  you  into  Galilee.  But  Peter  said 
unto  him,  Although  all  shall  be  Offended, 

30  yet  will  not  I.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  him, 
Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  to-day, 
(even)    this  night,   before  the  cock   crow 

31  2[twice],  shalt  deny  me  thrice.  But  he 
spake  exceeding  vehemently,  If  I  must 
die  with  thee,  I  will  not  deny  thee.  And 
in  like  manner  also  said  they  all. 

32  And  they  come  unto  3a  place,  which  was 
named  Gethsemane:  and  he  saith  unto  his 


1  Gr.  caused  to  stumble. 


3  Gr.  an  enclosed  piece  of  ground. 


2  /3  var.  omit  [  ]. 


R 

(a.  Lk.  22:  31, 
32,  35-38; 
Zech  13:  7) 
(P) 


Vers.33-42=Mt. 
26:36-46= 
L,k.  32:39-46 

R(P) 


of  the  Twelve,  and  how  Jesus  miraculously  foresaw  and  predicted  what 
was  about  to  happen. 

Vers.  27,  28.  The  gathering  again  of  the  scattered  flock  is  not  cred- 
ited to  Peter,  as  in  Luke  (cf.  Jn.  21:  15-17),  but  to  the  Chief  Shepherd 
himself,  who  will  "go  before  them,"  as  a  shepherd  precedes  his  flock, 
into  Galilee.  The  later  tradition  of  Luke  cancels  the  whole  episode  of 
the  desertion,  rallying  in  Galilee,  and  return  to  Jerusalem,  admitting  no 
interval  of  the  kind.  Matthew,  the  Appendix  to  John,  and  Ev.  Petri 
preserve  the  Galilean  tradition.  Jn.  1 — 20  follows  the  Lukan,  which 
became  dominant.  Paul  (I  Cor.  15:  3-7)  gives  no  indication  of  place 
or  time  of  the  appearances,  but  ignores  all  relating  to  the  empty  sepul- 
cher.  Mark  manifestly  intends  to  relate  a  manifestation  to  Peter  and 
the  rest  in  Galilee  (cf.  16:  7,  8).  The  account  is  no  longer  extant. 
Offended.     Already  a  stereotyped  term  for  unbelief  or  backsliding. 

Vers.  29-31.  Peter  never  appears  in  a  separate  role  in  this  Gospel 
but  to  receive  a  rebuke.  The  story  of  the  Denial,  vers.  66-72,  is  an  un- 
questionably authentic  element  of  Petrine  tradition.  The  anticipation 
of  it  here  in  special  boasting  attributed  to  Peter  stands  in  singular  con- 
trast to  the  purely  Lukan  material,  where  all  the  emphasis  is  laid  on 
Peter's  unique  service. 

Ver.  30.  Twfce  .  .  .  thrice.  The  word  "twice"  is  lacking  in  some 
texts  and  absent  from  Matthew  and  Luke.  It  serves  to  make  the  cor- 
respondence closer  in  detail  between  prediction  and  fulfillment  (vers. 
66-72).  E.  Abbott1  accounts  for  the  growth  of  the  story  into  a  thrice 
repeated  denial  after  two  cock-cro wings  by  supposing  a  Semitic  phrase, 
"Before  cock-crow  twice  (yea)  thrice  thou  wilt  deny  me."  See  on  ver. 
68. 

Vers.  32-42.  Gethsemane.  Considering  the  disposition  of  R  to  en- 
hance the  elements  of  the  tradition  which  exhibit  Jesus  as  gifted  with 
divine  power  and  foresight,  the  preservation  of  this  touchingly  human 
scene  can  hardly  be  accounted  for  save  through  the  clinging  hold  of 
devout  tradition.  Already  in  Heb.  5:  7-10  it  forms  part  of  the  passion- 
story,  while  the  threefold  repetition  of  the  scene  of  Jesus'  watchfulness 
unto  prayer  in  contrast  with  the  unfaithful  watch  of  the  disciples — in 
Luke  a  single  scene — clearly  manifest  a  hortatory  purpose  expressed  in 

1  Am.  Journ.  of  Theol.,  Jan.,  1898. 


14:33-40       THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


207 


33  disciples,  Sit  ye  here,  while  I  pray.  And  he 
taketh  with  him  Peter  and  James  and  John, 
and  began  to  be  greatly  amazed,  and  sore 

34  troubled.  And  he  saith.  unto  them,  My 
soul    is    exceeding    sorrowful    even    unto 

35  death:  1[abide  ye  here,  and  watch.1]  And 
he  went  forward  a  little,  and  fell  on  the 
ground,  and  prayed  that,  if  it  were  possible, 

36  the  hour  might  pass  away  from  him.  And 
he  said,  Abba,  Father,  all  things  are  possible 
unto  thee;  remove  this  cup  from  me:  how- 
beit  not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt. 

37  And  he  cometh,  and  findeth  them  sleeping, 
and  saith  unto  Peter,  Simon,  sleepest  thou? 

38  couldest  thou  not  watch  one  hour?  2Watch 
and  pray,  that  ye  enter  not  into  tempta- 
tion: the  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the 

39  flesh  is  weak.  And  again  he  went  away, 
and    prayed,   3[saying    the    same    words.[| 

40  And  again  he  came,  and  found  them  sleep- 
ing, for  their  eyes  were  very  heavy;  and 


1  Sinaitic  Syriac  omits  [  ]. 

2  Or,  Watch  ye,  and  pray  that  ye  enter  not. 


3  0  var.  omit  [  ]. 


Cf.  Heb.  5:  7 


Cf.  Mt.  6:  10 


ver.  38.  The  story  had  religious  value  as  an  example  of  faithful  vigil 
and  must  have  been  used  in  connection  with  this  observance.  So  far 
as  the  expressions  used  in  vers.  33,  34  may  seem  to  suggest  a  mysterious 
agony  of  soul  not  explicable  from  the  disastrous  outlook  for  Jesus' 
cause,  we  must  attribute  it  to  the  beginning  of  that  morbid  theological 
tendency  which  imports  factitious  inflictions  from  God  into  the  situa- 
tion in  the  interest  of  piacular  theories  of  the  atonement.  Such  tend- 
encies are  already  apparent  in  the  use  of  Is.  53:  6  in  I  Pt.  2:  25.  The 
agony,  however,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  Jesus'  heroic  purpose  of 
losing  his  life  to  save  it.  The  prayer  is  indeed  for  deliverance  from 
death  (ver.  36,  cf.  Heb.  5:7),  but  not  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  the  per- 
sonal humiliation  and  suffering  implied.  Rather  we  should  infer  from 
the  bearing  of  the  rite  instituted  (see  on  vers.  22-25)  and  from  his  sub- 
sequent earnest  warnings  and  pleadings,  that  Jesus'  agony  was  for  the 
fate  of  his  cause.  The  "high-priestly  prayer"  of  Jn.  17  properly  reflects 
the  feeling  that  Jesus'  solicitude  in  this  crisis  was  for  his  scattered  flock 
(cf.  ver.  27),  on  whose  "turning  again"  all  hope  for  his  gospel  depended. 

Ver.  33.     On  the  trio  of  martyr-apostles  see  comment  on  5:  37. 

Ver.  36.  An  attempt  to  give  in  direct  discourse,  including  even  the 
Aramaic  "Abba,"  what  had  been  already  stated  in  general  terms  in  ver. 
35.  This  cap.  The  prophetic  figure  already  employed  in  10:40.  In 
ver.  35  "the  hour,"  i.e.,  of  destiny.  The  burden  of  the  prayer  was  in- 
ferable from  Jesus'  bearing. 

Vers.  37,  38.  Simon,  Sleepest  thou?  .  .  .  Pray  that  ye  enter  not 
into  temptation.  Both  parallels  put  the  rebuke  in  the  plural.  All  the 
disciples  are  blamed.  There  is  a  resemblance  in  thought  and  language 
between  these  two  verses  and  Lk.  22:  31,  32. 


208 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       14:41-46 


41  they  wist  not  what  to  answer  him.  And 
he  cometh  the  third  time,  and  saith  unto 
them,  ^leep  on  2[now],  and  take  your 
rest:  3it  is  enough;  the  hour  is 
come;  behold,  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed 

42  into  the  hands  of  sinners.  Arise, 
let  us  be  going:  behold,  he  that  betrayeth 
me  is  at  hand. 

43  And  straightway,  while  he  yet  spake, 
cometh  Judas,  one  of  the  twelve,  and  with 
him  a  multitude  with  swords  and  staves, 
from  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  and 

44  the  elders.  Now  he  that  betrayed  him  had 
given  them  a  token,  saying,  Whomsoever 
I  shall  kiss,  that  is  he;  take  him,  and  lead 

45  him  away  safely.  And  when  he  was  come, 
straightway  he  came  to  him,  and  saith, 

46  Rabbi;   and  4kissed  him.    And  they  laid 

1  Or,  Are  ye  still  sleeping  on  and  taking  f 

2  Sinaitic  Syriac  omits  [  ]. 

3  Sinaitic  Syriac,  the  hour  is  come;  the  end  has  arrived. 
*  Gr.  kissed  him  much. 


R  (9:31;  10:33) 


Vers.43-50=Mt. 
26:47-56= 
Lk.  22:47-53 

(P) 


Ver.  41.  Wellhausen  renders  "Are  ye  still  sleeping  and  taking  your 
rest  ? — Enough !  Rise, ' '  etc.  The  intervening  words ,  '  'The  hour  is  come, 
and  the  Son  of  man  is  delivered  into  the  hands  of  sinners "  (Gen- 
tiles), he  regards  as  editorial.  The  phraseology  is  in  fact  that  of 
9:31;  10:33. 

Vers.  43-50.  Betrayal  and  Arrest.  This  final  scene  before  the  dis- 
persion of  the  Twelve  is  one  of  the  most  realistic  of  the  Gospel.  Its 
interest  is  almost  purely  historical,  and  it  is  followed  by  one  (vers.  51,  52) 
so  limited  in  its  sphere  of  interest  that  neither  of  the  dependent  Gospels 
has  retained  it.  R  attempts  to  give  the  story  a  pragmatic  value  as  a 
"fulfillment  of  scripture,"  but  what  scripture  is  meant  is  not  apparent. 
The  earlier  motive  is  suggested  in  the  reported  saying  of  Jesus,  and 
appears  more  clearly  in  Luke.  Jesus  surrenders  under  protest.  The 
bystanders  are  called  to  witness  that  the  midnight  hour  and  rudely 
armed  force  are  not  occasioned  by  any  disposition  he  had  ever  shown 
to  resist  lawful  authority.  The  violence,  the  illegality  hiding  itself 
under  cover  of  the  night,  are  those  of  his  captors — "this  is  your  (ap- 
propriate) hour,  and  the  force  of  darkness." 

Ver.  43.  From  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  and  elders.  Mark  makes 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrin  responsible  for  what  was  really  a  secret  plot  of 
the  high-priestly  clique  of  Annas.  So  Luke  in  22:  52;  but  cf.  ver.  47. 
John  brings  in  the  "whole  cohort"  of  Roman  soldiers  (600  men),  who 
-'went  backward  and  fell  to  the  ground"  when  Jesus  advanced  and 
offered  himself. 

Ver.  45.  Saith,  Rabbi,  and  kissed  him.  The  feeling  of  the  narrator 
appears  in  the  use  of  the  Aramaic  title,  elsewhere  usually  translated, 
and  in  the  strengthened  form  of  the  verb  "to  kiss."  In  Luke,  Jesus 
does  not  permit  this  desecration  of  the  token  of  friendship.  In  Matthew 
he  protests,  but  does  not  prevent  it. 


J4t 47-52       THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


209 


47  hands  on  him,  and  took  him.  But  a  cer- 
tain one  of  them  x[that  stood  by]  drew  his 
sword,  and  smote  the  2servant  of  the  high 

48  priest,  and  struck  off  his  ear.  And  Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  Are  ye  come 
out    3[as]    against  a   robber,  with  swords 

49  and  staves  to  seize  me?  I  was  daily  with 
you  in  the  temple  teaching,  and  ye  took 
me  not:  but  (this  is  done)  that  the  scriptures 

50  might  be  fulfilled.  And  they  all  left  him, 
and  fled. 

51  And  a  certain  young  man  followed  with 
him,  having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  him, 
over  (his)  naked  (body) :  and  they  lay  hold 

52  on  him ;  but  he  left  the  linen  cloth,  and  fled 
naked. 


1  p  var.  omit  f  ].  2  Gr.  bondservant. 

3  0  var.  omit  [  ],  and  insert  that  ye  come  after  robber. 


Cf.  Jn.  18:  15, 16 
(E) 


Ver.  47.  One  of  them  that  stood  by.  A  strange  way  to  designate 
one  of  the  Twelve,  perhaps  omitted  for  this  reason  in  Codex  D  (see  var.). 
Yet  why  should  Mark  mention  the  incident  at  all  if  he  wishes  to  avoid 
exposing  these  to  governmental  indictment?  Matthew  and  Luke  en- 
deavor to  give  the  incident  a  pragmatic  value  by  attaching,  the  one 
a  moralizing  teaching  (Mt.  26:  52-54),  the  other  a  merciful  healing 
(Lk.  22:  51).  The  unconnected  incident,  like  vers.  51,  52,  as  it  stands, 
is  simply  an  erratic  block  of  historic  tradition.  The  original  motive 
for  its  preservation  may  have  been  the  fixing  of  responsibility  for  the 
treacherous  plot  on  those  to  whom  it  really  belonged.  The  sword  cut 
of  a  bystander  could  do  little  to  prevent  the  tragedy,  but  it  served  to 
identify  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  band  which  had  seized  Jesus  and  de- 
livered him  up  as  "the  servant  of  the  high-priest." 

Vers.  51,  52.  The  Youth  who  escaped  Naked.  This  incident 
"would  be  memorable  to  the  young  man  himself"  (Morison).  The 
remarkable  thing  is  that  it  would  be  so  little  memorable  to  anyone  else. 
This,  which  leads  to  its  omission  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  has  proved  a 
stimulus  to  the  romantic  imagination  since  perhaps  the  fourth  evan- 
gelist (Jn.  18:  15,  16).  Theophylact  conjectured  that  the  youth  came 
from  the  house  where  the  supper  had  been  held  and  whither  Judas 
would  first  return  after  securing  his  posse.  Moderns  add,  This  is  "the 
signature  of  the  artist  in  an  obscure  corner  of  the  canvas."  Both  are 
combined  in  the  theory  which  identifies  the  "upper  room"  with  the 
gathering-place  of  the  early  Church  in  the  house  of  Mary  mother  of 
John  "surnamed  Mark"  (Acts  12:  12).  The  youth,  roused  from  his 
bed  by  the  coming  of  Judas'  band,  pursued  hastily,  perhaps  in  the 
vain  hope  of  giving  the  alarm  to  Jesus  and  the  Twelve.  The  band 
at  least  regard  him  as  on  that  side.  If  this  be  indeed  John  Mark, 
it  would  only  make  it  the  more  certain  that  a  tradition  so  remotely 
and  incoherently  attached  cannot  come  at  first  hand  from  the  author 
of  our  Gospel.  R's  readers,  however,  will  have  known  who  was  meant. 
Cf.  15:  21. 


210  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      14:53-55 


53  And  they  led  Jesus  away  to  the  high 
priest:  *and  there  come  together 
with  him  all  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders 

54  and  the  scribes.  And  Peter  had 
followed  him  afar  off,  even  within,  into  the 
court  of  the  high  priest;  and  he  was  sitting 
with  the  officers,  and  warming  himself  in 

55  the  light  (of  the  fire).  Now  the 
chief  priests  and  the  whole  council  sought 
witness  against  Jesus  to  put  him  to  death; 

1  One  var.  has    instead    of    ver.  53&    only    and   scribes  and 
elders. 


Vers.  63,54=Mt. 
26:57,58= 
Lk.  22:51,55 

R(P) 


Ver8.55-64=Mt. 
26:59-66= 
Lk.  22:66-71 
R 


Vers.  53,  54,  66-72.  Peter's  Denial  in  the  High  Priest's  House. 
Mark's  method  of  interjection  is  again  illustrated  by  the  interweaving 
of  his  (unhistorical)  story  of  the  Trial  before  the  whole  Sanhedrin  into 
the  midst  of  the  older  Petrine  tradition  of  Peter's  Denial  in  the  court- 
yard of  the  high  priest's  house.  Here  where  the  rude  band  of  slaves 
held  Jesus  in  temporary  detention,  until  at  daylight  he  could  be  sur- 
rendered to  Pilate  as  a  messianic  agitator,  it  was  possible  for  the  most 
daring  of  Jesus'  followers  to  mingle  with  the  motley  throng  and  witness 
the  vulgar  abuse  with  which  Jesus'  servile  captors  amused  themselves, 
after  the  manner  of  their  kind,  at  the  expense  of  their  silent  victim. 
The  place  of  detention,  the  identity  of  the  leaders  in  Judas'  posse,  the 
accusers  of  Jesus  before  Pilate  leave  little  enough  of  that  veil  of  secret 
intrigue,  behind  which  "the  hissing  brood  of  Annas"  doubtless  en- 
deavored, after  their  wont,  to  conceal  their  murderous  plot.  On  the 
alleged  gathering  of  the  Sanhedrin  at  midnight  of  Passover  night(!)  to 
hold  a  formal  trial  of  Jesus  in  Caiaphas'  house,  from  which  they  again 
disperse  to  reassemble  at  dawn  (!),  see  on  The  Trial,  vers.  55-64. 

Ver.  53.  The  second  half  of  the  verse  is  wanting  in  Luke,  and  largely 
wanting  in  one  of  the  Latin  versions  of  Mark  (see  var.).  It  is  an  addi- 
tion of  R  preparatory  to  the  trial-scene  of  vers.  55-64.  R  wishes  to 
fix  the  responsibility  of  the  murder  on  the  Jewish  senate  as  a  whole,  as 
incredible  historically,  as  it  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  sense  of  the 
P  tradition  itself;  see  on  ver.  65. 

Ver.  54.  Court  (yard)  of  the  high  priest.  The  tradition  vacillates 
between  Annas  and  Caiaphas  as  the  responsible  instigator  of  the  plot, 
Jn.  18:  13-24  combining  the  two.  Caiaphas  was  officially  high  priest, 
but  the  unscrupulous  Annas,  his  father-in-law  and  ex-high  priest, 
kept  the  reins  of  power  in  his  own  hands  and  may  have  been  the  arch- 
conspirator.  Jn.  13:  13  makes  this  the  house  of  Annas,  Mt.  26:  57  that 
of  Caiaphas. 

Vers.  55-64.  The  Trial  before  the  Sanhedrin.  The  story  which  R 
here  interjects  not  only  interrupts  the  context  so  grossly  as  to  make 
the  members  of  the  Jewish  senate  (!)  engage  in  the  pastime  described 
in  ver.  65,  but  is  historically  impossible  as  well  as  logically  useless.  If 
the  council  was  to  assemble  in  the  morning  (15:  1),  of  what  service  the 
midnight  session?  Once  met,  why  disperse  and  reassemble,  supposing 
this  to  be  physically  possible?  Or  again,  since  it  is  manifestly  the  pur- 
pose of  the  conspirators  from  the  outset  to  escape  responsibility  by  de- 
livering Jesus  over  to  Pilate  as  a  disturber  of  the  peace,  what  purpose 
can  the  trial  serve?    Then  the  conspirators  gratuitously  assume  the 


14:56-59        THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  211 


56  and  found  it  not.  For  many  bare  false 
witness    against    him,    and    their    witness 

57  agreed  not  together.  And  there  stood  up 
certain,  and  bare  false  witness  against  him, 

58  saying,  We  heard  him  say,  I  will  destroy 
this  Hemple  that  is  made  with  hands,  and 
in  three  days  I  will  build  another  made 

59  without  hands.     And  not  even  so  did  their 

1  Or,  sanctuary. 


very  responsibility  they  wish  to  avoid.  And  all  is  done  in  violation  of 
fundamental  rules  of  Jewish  jurisprudence  forbidding  night  sessions, 
hasty  executions,  action  on  feast  days,  and  the  like.  Why,  above  all, 
make  the  chief  indictment  blasphemy,  when  Jesus'  own  declaration  of 
his  Messiahship  would  not  support  the  charge,  and  with  the  knowledge 
that  if  they  do  convict  him  they  have  no  power  to  execute  the  sentence, 
whether  directly  or  through  Pilate?  A  more  complete  tissue  of  ab- 
surdities would  be  hard  to  frame  than  the  story  thus  interjected  by 
Mark  where  Luke  proceeds  in  simple,  logical  order,  without  any  interrup- 
tion whatever  (Lk.  22:  54-65). 

And  the  motive  for  the  intercalation  is  so  transparent!  By  just  as 
much  as  the  Jewish  senate  if  they  did  wish  to  rid  themselves  of  Jesus 
would  have  avoided  the  course  here  imputed  to  them,  by  so  much  is  it 
a  matter  of  concern  with  R  to  make  them  follow  it.  The  detestable 
Jews,  "who  both  killed  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  prophets,  and  drove  out 
us,  and  please  not  God  and  are  contrary  to  all  men,"  are  responsible 
through  their  chief  senate  for  the  crime  (for  the  animus  cf.  Mt.  27:  25). 
Moreover  the  real  motive  was  the  same  unbelief  which  makes  them 
now  cry  "Blasphemy"  when  the  declaration  is  made  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ.  But  the  very  elements  which  make  this  claim  "blasphemy" 
to  Jewish  ears  are  the  products  of  the  "manifestation  of  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God  by  the  resurrection."  It  is  a  simple  anachronism  to  make 
the  high  priest  treat  the  claim  to  Messiahship  as  if  it  involved  already 
the  claims  of  Pauline  Christology .  And  besides  all ,  it  is  not  even  claimed 
that  the  story  comes  from  any  eye-  or  ear-witness !  At  the  utmost  the 
saying  about  destroying  and  rebuilding  the  temple  (ver.  58),  which 
really  has  a  claim  to  emanate  from  Jesus,  and  is  all  the  more  probably 
authentic  because  R  has  cancelled  it  from  the  tradition  of  Jesus'  real 
utterances,  may  have  had  a  connection  with  the  final  tragedy.  If  so, 
it  is  before  Pilate  and  not  before  Caiaphas  that  it  would  have  signifi- 
cance. The  connection  of  Jn.  2:  19  and  Mk.  15:  29  suggests  the  possi- 
bility that  the  tradition  once  preserved  a  trace  of  the  real  onus  of  the 
charge  which  secured  the  desired  condemnation  from  Pilate.  One  act, 
and  only  one ,  could  be  pointed  to  as  evidence  against  the  alleged  mes- 
sianic agitator.  He  had  hf ted  his  hand  against  the  control  of  the  priests 
in  the  temple.     Such  a  trace  R  may  have  found  in  his  sources. 

Ver.  57.  False  witness.  R  gives  no  intimation  that  this  was  not 
simple  fabrication.  Jn.  2:  19  corroborates  the  impression  that  an 
authentic  saying  lies  behind  R's  story  here  and  in  15:  29.  Of  course 
this  would  not  include  the  two  explanatory  adjectives,  "made  with 
hands"  and  "made  without  hands,"  which  completely  deprive  the 
saying  of  the  revolutionary  character  the  witnesses  seek  to  give  it.  R's 
pragmatic  impulse  here  eclipses  his  historic  sense.  The  doctrine  is  of 
course  that  of  I  Cor.  3:  9-17;  I  Pt.  2:  5;  Acts  7:  47-50;  Rev.  21:  22; 


212 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       14:60-65 


60  witness  agree  together.  And  the  high 
priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and  asked 
Jesus,  saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing? 
what  is  it  which  these  witness  against  thee? 

61  But  he  held  his  peace,  and  answered  noth- 
ing. Again  the  high  priest  asked  him, 
and  saith  unto  him,  Art  thou  the  Christ, 

62  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?  And  Jesus  said, 
I  am:  and  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sit- 
ting at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming 

63  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.  And  the  high 
priest  rent  his  clothes,   and  saith,  What 

64  further  need  have  we  of  witnesses?  Ye 
have  heard  the  blasphemy:  what  think  ye? 
And  they  all  condemned  him  to  be  xworthy 

65  of  death.  And  some  began  to 
spit  on  him,  2[and  to  cover  his  face,] 
and  to  buffet  him,  and  to  say  unto  him, 
Prophesy:  and  the  officers  received  him 
with  3blows  of  their  hands. 


1  Gr.  liable  to. 

3  Or,  strokes  of  rods. 


2  /3  var.  omit  [  ]. 


Ver.  65=Mt.  26: 
67,  68=L,k. 
22:63-65 

(P) 


Jn.  4:  21-24,  the  pervasive  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  new  temple 
Messiah  was  expected  to  found :  The  true  counterpart  of  the  "dwelling- 
place"  (Heb.  mishkan  =  "tabernacle")  of  God  erected  by  Moses  is  not 
Solomon's  building  of  stone,  but  God's  "dwelling  with,"  or  "in"  his 
people.  Luke  removes  this  trait  of  the  false  witness  and  the  utterance 
against  the  temple,  and  inserts  it  in  the  trial  of  Stephen,  Lk.  22:  66-71 ; 
cf.  Acts  6:  13,  14. 

Vers.  61-64.  For  his  second  charge  brought  against  Jesus,  R  has 
probably  no  other  foundation  than  the  P  tradition  of  15:  2  (see  com- 
ment) and  the  attitude  of  the  Synagogue  of  his  own  time  against  the 
Christology  of  the  Church. 

Ver.  62.  For  the  direct  assertion  I  am,  both  parallels  substitute  the 
more  or  less  evasive  reply  of  15:  2.  "Thou  hast  said"  (Mt.  26:  64;  Lk. 
22:  70  "ye  say")  at  least  throws  the  responsibility  for  the  use  of  terms 
upon  the  questioner.  Matthew  and  Luke  have  not  a  more  historic 
record  of  the  utterance,  but  a  better  appreciation  that  the  unqualified 
avowal  of  Mark  would  in  Roman  eyes  justify  the  surrender  to  Pilate 
and  execution  of  Jesus. 

Ver.  65.  In  the  P  tradition  and  Luke  the  menials  who  hold  Jesus 
captive  in  the  court-yard  indulge  in  this  vulgar  abuse  of  their  victim 
in  easy  view  of  Peter.  Both  parallels  make  clear  the  sense  of  "cover 
his  face"  and  "Prophesy"  by  adding,  "Who  is  he  that  struck  thee?" 
But  for  the  omission  of  the  clause  "and  cover  his  face"  in  the  /?  text 
this  would  be  an  important  indication  of  the  accessibility  of  the  story 
to  Matthew  and  Luke  in  other  form  than  Mark's.  R's  intercalation  of 
the  Trial  scene,  vers.  55-64,  has  for  one  result  the  removal  of  the  occur- 
rences from  the  possible  view  of  Peter.  For  Peter  is  with  the  "officers" 
(Gr.,  "apparitors"),  who  only  "received   him  with   blows"  after  the 


14:66-71        THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


213 


66  And  as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  court, 
there  cometh  one  of  the  maids  of  the  high 

67  priest;  and  seeing  Peter  warming  himself, 
she  looked  upon  him,  and  saith,  Thou  also 
wast    with    the    Nazarene,    (even)    Jesus. 

68  But  he  denied,  saying,  *I  neither  know, 
nor  understand  what  thou  sayest:  and  he 
went  out  into  the  2porch;  3[and  the  cock 

69  crew.]  And  the  maid  saw  him,  and  began 
again  to  say  to  them  that  stood  by,  This 

70  is  (one)  of  them.  But  he  again  denied  it. 
And  after  a  little  while  again  they  that 
stood  by  said  to  Peter,  Of  a  truth  thou  art 
(one)   of  them;  for  thou  art  a  Galilean. 

71  But  he  began  to  curse,  and  to  swear,  I 
know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak. 

1  Or,  I  neither  know,  nor  understand:  thou,  what  sayest  thou  t 

2  Gr.  forecourt.  3  Var.  omit  [  ]. 


Vers.66-73=Mt. 
36:69-75= 
Lk.  23:56-63 

(P) 


example  had  been  set  by  their  superiors.  Its  more  serious  result  is  to 
produce  the  incredible  representation  of  trial  before  a  senate  com- 
prising such  names  as  Gamaliel  and  Nicodemus  degenerating  into  a 
scene  of  "spitting  upon"  the  prisoner,  covering  his  face  with  a  cloak, 
striking  him  and  asking,  "Prophesy,  who  struck  thee?"  in  derision  of 
his  reputation  as  a  prophet.  That  Mark  really  believed  "the  chief 
priests  and  scribes"  would  condescend  to  this  is  confirmed  by  15:  31. 

Vers.  66-72.  Continuation  of  Peter's  Denial.  The  narrative  has  its 
pragmatic  value  as  a  conclusion  to  the  Boastful  Offer,  vers.  27-31,  and 
the  Unfaithful  Vigil,  vers.  32-42,  in  which  the  original  tradition  cer- 
tainly made  Peter  the  dreadful  example,  though  only  with  a  view  to 
ultimate  reversal  of  the  situation  (Lk.  22:  31,  32;  cf.  Mt.  14:  28-31); 
whereas  Mark  as  we  have  it  transfers  the  great  act  of  reversal  to  the 
credit  of  Jesus  personally  (14:  27,  28),  heightens  every  feature  which 
throws  blame  upon  Peter,  while  detracting  from  the  credit  side  (vers. 
29,  37,  71,  72),  and  finally  suppresses  the  whole  story  of  his  restoration. 
From  the  rest  of  the  story  of  Mark  we  must  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
exclude  all  possibility  of  the  testimony  of  Peter,  which  originally  con- 
tinued, as  Lk.  22:  31,  32;  Mt.  14:  28-31  imply,  with  his  experience  of 
the  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  in  Galilee. 

Ver.  68.  With  the  change  of  scene  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  disciples 
is  shown  a  second  time.  Exact  correspondence  with  the  prediction, 
ver.  30,  is  intended,  transcribers  of  the  text  taking  care  to  supply  the 
trifling  omission  of  the  first  cock-crowing,  which  is  lacking  in  some 
texts,  perhaps  by  accident. 

Ver.  70.  The  threefoldness  of  the  denial  is  dwelt  upon  not  merely 
for  emphasis  (cf.  Acts  10:  16),  nor  merely  to  exhibit  the  accuracy  of 
Jesus'  miraculous  foreknowledge,  but  because  the  story  is  intended 
as  a  pendant  to  that  of  Jesus'  watchfulness  unto  prayer  in  Gethsemane, 
ver.  4.     Cf.  the  threefold  restoration  in  Jn.  21:  15-18. 

Ver.  71.  Began  to  curse,  i.e.,  invoke  imprecations  on  himself  if  his 
assertion  were  not  true.  The  Lukan  parallel  softens  this  to  the  an- 
swer, "Man,  I  know  not  what  thou  sayest." 


214 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


T4:72 


72  And  straightway  x[the  second  time]  the 
cock  crew.  And  Peter  called  to  mind  the 
word,  2[how]  that  Jesus  said  unto  him, 
2[Before  the  cock  crow  ^twice,]  thou 
shalt  deny  me  thrice.]  3And  when  he 
thought  thereon,  he  wept. 


1  Var.  omit  [  ].  2  |3  var.  omit  [  ]. 

3  Or,  And  he  began  to  weep. 


Ver.  72.  Textual  variants  show  the  effort  of  transcribers  to  secure 
exact  fulfillment.  Probably  the  true  text  of  ver.  72  should  read  "And 
straightway  the  cock  crew.  And  Peter  called  to  mind  the  word  that 
Jesus  had  said  unto  him.  And  when  he  thought  thereon  he  wept." 
See  var.  Both  parallels  qualify  Peter's  weeping  as  "bitter."  The 
translation  of  this  clause  is  doubtful.  The  Greek  figure  would  be  con- 
veyed by  "And  in  response  he  wept." 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  215 


THE  CRUCIFIXION 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  b.  15: 1-39.  On  the  following  day  the  San- 
hedrin  delivered  up  Jesus  to  Pilate  as  aspiring  to  be  king. 
And  Pilate  knowing  their  hypocrisy  would  have  set  him  free, 
but  the  multitude  clamored  against  him  that  he  should  be  cruci- 
fied, till  Pilate  yielded.  Jesus  therefore  was  delivered  to  the 
soldiery,  to  be  scourged  and  crucified.  The  course  of  these 
events  was  as  follows: 

15:  1-5.  In  the  morning  of  the  great  day  of  the  feast  the 
Sanhedrin  reassembled,  and  after  consultation  bound  Jesus  and 
delivered  him  to  Pilate.  And  the  governor  asked  him  if  he  were 
the  King  of  the  Jews,  but  Jesus  said  only,  That  is  your  title 
for  me,  not  one  that  I  have  coined.  And  the  priests  made  many 
accusations  to  which  Jesus  deigned  no  answer  at  all,  so  that 
Pilate  marvelled. 

Vers.  6-15.  And  the  multitude  began  to  clamor  for  the  re- 
lease of  a  prisoner,  because  Pilate  had  been  wont  to  give  amnesty 
to  one  whom  the  people  chose  at  the  annual  feast.  The  governor 
therefore  proposed  to  release  "the  King  of  the  Jews";  for  he 
understood  that  the  surrender  of  Jesus  by  the  priests  was  be- 
cause of  their  jealousy  of  his  influence  with  the  people.  But 
the  priests  prevailed  upon  the  crowd  to  demand  Barabbas,  one 
who  for  murder  committed  in  an  insurrection  was  then  a  prisoner; 
so  they  cried  out  for  Barabbas,  demanding  that  Jesus  be  cruci- 
fied, till  Pilate,  wishing  to  satisfy  the  multitude,  released  to  them 
Barabbas,  and  after  scourging  Jesus  delivered  him  to  be  crucified. 

Vers.  16-20.  The  soldiers  then  took  Jesus  to  the  barracks, 
and  in  derision  of  the  Jews'  hope  for  a  king  clothed  him  with 
royal  purple,  placed  a  wreath  of  the  creeping  thorn  upon  his 
head,  and,  saluting  him  as  "King  of  the  Jews,"  struck  him  on 
the  head  with  a  reed,  spat  upon  him,  and  did  him  mock  obeis- 
ance. After  this,  when  they  had  again  put  on  him  his  own 
garments,  they  led  him  forth  to  crucifixion. 

Vers.  21-32.  Now  as  Jesus  was  being  led  forth  the  soldiers 
seized  a  man  who  chanced  to  be  entering  the  city  from  the  coun- 
try, and  forced  him  to  bear  the  beam  instead  of  Jesus.  The 
man  who  thus  became  eyewitness  of  the  tragedy  was  no  other 
than  Simon  of  Cyrene,  the  father  of  our  own  Alexander  and 
Rufus.  Thus  they  came  to  the  place  of  crucifixion,  known  as 
Golgotha,  that  is,  The  Skull.     And  the  women  who  are  wont  to 


216  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

show  this  mercy  offered  him  wine  mixed  with  anodyne,  but  he 
would  not  take  it.  So  they  crucified  him,  and  the  soldiers  di- 
vided among  themselves  his  garments  (as  was  prophesied  in  the 
psalm  about  the  crucifixion).  Now  the  hour  at  which  the  cruci- 
fixion took  place  was  the  middle  hour  of  the  morning.  And  the 
charge  against  him  inscribed  over  the  cross  was  this:  THE  KING 
OF  THE  JEWS.  They  also  crucified  with  him  on  the  right 
and  left  hand  two  robbers.  And  the  passers  by  fulfilled  the 
prophecy  of  the  psalm,  wagging  their  heads  and  saying,  Ah, 
how  sad!  He  who  was  to  destroy  the  temple  and  rebuild  it  in 
three  days  cannot  even  release  himself  from  the  cross!  The 
chief  priests  also  exchanged  mocking  taunts  with  the  scribes,  The 
Savior  of  others  cannot  save  himself!  If  only  this  Christ  and 
King  of  Israel  would  come  down  from  the  cross  we  would  be- 
lieve him.  Even  the  robbers,  his  fellow-victims,  joined  in  the 
reproaches. 

Vers.  33-39.  From  noon  until  mid-afternoon  there  came 
a  miraculous  darkness  over  the  whole  land  (fulfilling  the  proph- 
ecy, Thy  sun  shall  go  down  at  noon).  Then,  just  at  mid-after- 
noon, Jesus  cried  aloud  and  gave  up  his  spirit.  The  utterance 
of  the  great  cry  is  that  which  was  prophesied  of  him  in  the 
crucifixion  psalm,  Eli,  Eli,  lama  zaphthanif,  the  meaning  of 
which  is,  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  (for 
the  Spirit  of  God  which  had  been  his  life  was  now  indeed 
taken  up).  And  some  of  the  bystanders,  not  understanding 
the  Hebrew  words,  said,  He  is  calling  for  Elijah,  who  pre- 
cedes the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  to  judgment.  So  one  of 
the  soldiers,  filling  a  sponge  from  the  jar  of  vinegar  with  which 
the  soldiers  slake  their  thirst,  held  it  to  his  lips  on  a  reed,  saying, 
Well  then,  revive  him  until  Elijah  comes;  perhaps  Elijah  will 
take  him  down.  (Thus  again  they  fulfilled  the  prophecy,  "  They 
gave  me  vinegar  to  drink.")  Now  at  the  parting  of  Jesus' 
spirit  the  temple  of  God  itself  seemed  to  rend  its  garment,  for 
the  veil  which  hangs  before  the  holy  place  was  found  torn  in  two 
from  top  to  bottom.  And  the  centurion  who  had  charge  of  the 
execution,  when  he  saw  how  Jesus  yielded  up  the  spirit  that 
was  in  him,  could  not  forbear  his  testimony,  acknowledging 
that  he  died  like  those  who  are  fabled  to  be  the  sons  of  divinities. 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  217 


SUBDIVISION  B.     15: 1-39.— CRITICISM 

The  group  of  five  incidents  with  which  Subdivision  b  begins,  and 
which  ends  with  the  avowal  of  the  centurion  when  Jesus  has  breathed 
his  last,  "Truly  this  man  was  a  son  of  God,"  is  dominated  by  the  de- 
sire to  vindicate  the  claim  that  in  a  true  sense  Jesus  was  "the  king  of 
the  Jews,"  though  not,  of  course,  that  of  his  sentence  as  inscribed  on 
the  cross.  So  prominent  is  the  thought  in  the  evangelist's  mind  that 
he  even  makes  Pilate  put  the  question  in  advance  of  the  priests'  accusa- 
tion. Jesus'  reply  brings  out  the  ambiguity  of  the  term  by  returning 
it  upon  the  questioner.  Thrice  in  this  first  scene  Pilate  pronounces 
Jesus  "the  King  of  the  Jews,"  and  in  two  more  scenes  (the  mockery  of  the 
soldiers  and  the  crucifixion)  this  phrase  becomes  central,  making  five 
solemn  reiterations  in  all.1 

The  second  incident2  exhibits  under  the  figure  of  Barabbas  the  Jews' 
idea  of  a  "Son  of  David."  Barabbas  is  "one  who  had  made  insurrection, 
and  in  the  insurrection  had  committed  murder."  Against  this  the 
figure  of  Jesus  stands  forth  in  clear  relief.  Pilate,  in  yielding  to  the 
Jews'  clamor  against  Jesus,  reversed  the  principles  of  common  sense 
which  would  have  controlled  a  worthy  governor.  The  bearing  of  this 
paragraph  becomes  very  apparent  in  the  light  of  the  early  apologists' 
defenses  of  Christianity. 

The  third  incident3  has  a  significance  analogous  to  the  "irony"  of 
the  Greek  dramatic  poets;  in  ignorance  the  Roman  soldiery  utter 
"prophecy."4 

The  fourth  incident  is  the  crucifixion  itself,  carefully  dated  "at  the 
third  hour."  Its  central  theme  is  the  one  vital  datum  of  historic  tradi- 
tion, the  superscription  THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS.  The  meager 
items  grouped  about  this  in  vers.  21-32  pathetically  reveal  the  absence 
of  historical  data.  We  have  (1)  a  bit  of  local  tradition  invaluable  as 
attesting  the  derivation  of  the  story5;  (2)  two  constant  accompani- 
ments of  all  executions  of  the  kind,  the  anodyne,  and  parting  of  the 
victim's  property,  in  this  case  treated  as  a  fulfillment  of  scripture6;  (3) 
a  description,  probably  not  resting  on  tradition,  of  the  attitude  of  the 
people.7  The  fifth  incident8  has  for  its  foundation  only  the  parting  of 
Jesus'  spirit  with  a  loud  cry,  which  by  the  evangelist  is  declared  to  have 
been  a  quotation  in  Aramaic  (Matthew  supplies  the  Hebrew)  of  Ps.  22:  2, 
misunderstood  by  others.  The  added  data  of  the  miraculous  darkness 
extending  from  noon  until  the  ninth  hour,  a  fulfillment,  as  the  early 
anti-Jewish  apologists  point  out,  of  Amos  8:  9,  and  the  rending  of  the 
temple  veil,  are  obviously  symbolical  in  intention.  The  centurion's 
word  sums  up  the  significance  of  the  paragraph. 

Traces  of  the  ecclesiastical  use  which  has  preserved  to  us  this  narra- 
tive are  especially  manifest  in  the  careful  noting  of  the  watches  of  the 
day.9  This  is  not  due  to  historic  interest  such  as  by  careful  inquiry 
might  ascertain  that  the  moment  of  crucifixion  was  9  a.m.,  the  duration 
of  the  miraculous  darkness  just  from  noon  till  3  p.m.,  and  the  expiring 
cry  at  the  latter  hour,  thus  dividing  the  day  precisely  into  quarters. 
The  division  is  for  purposes  of  ritual.  These  are  time  divisions  of  the 
great  day  of  fasting  which  the  Church  observes  (2:  20), 10  marking  its 
watches  by  the  acts  of  the  sacred  drama. 


1  Vera.  2,  9,  12,  18,  26.  *  Vera.  6-15.  »  Vera.  16-20. 

•  Cf.  Jn.  11:  51;  Acts  17:  23.  *  Ver.  21.  •  Vera.  22-24. 

7  Vera.  29-32.  8  Vera.  33-39.  9  Vera.  25,  33,  34. 

10  See  the  letter  of  Irenaeua  (ca.  180  ad.),  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  V,  xxiv.  12. 


218 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


15: 1-6 


15  A  ND    straightway   in    the   morning   the 

A     chief    priests    with    the    elders    and 

scribes,  and  the  whole  council,  held  a 

consultation,  and  bound  Jesus,  and  carried 

him  away,  and  delivered  him  up  to  Pilate. 

2  And  Pilate  asked  him,  Art  thou 
the  King  of  the  Jews?    And  he  answering 

3  saith  unto  him,  Thou  sayest.  And 
the    chief   priests    accused   him    of   many 

4  things.  And  Pilate  again  asked  him,  say- 
ing, Answerest  thou  nothing?  behold  how 

5  many  things  they  accuse  thee  of.  But 
Jesus  no  more  answered  anything;  inso- 
much that  Pilate  marvelled. 

6  Now  at  Hhe  feast  he  used  to  release  unto 
them  one  prisoner,  whom  they  asked  of 

1  Or,  a  feast;  Sinaitic  Syriac,  every  feast. 


15:l-5=Mt.  27: 
1,  2,  11-14= 
JLk.  33:  1-6 

R(P) 


Vers.  6-15=Mt. 
27:16-26= 
Lk.  33:13-26 

R(P) 


Vers.  1-5.  The  Council  accuse  Jesus  to  Pilate.  The  intercalated 
trial  scene  of  14:  55-64  is  a  mere  replica  of  this  paragraph,  but  R's 
hand  is  also  traceable  here,  at  least  in  ver.  1.  The  real  accusers  were 
"the  chief  priests,"  as  ver.  3  declares.  The  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin 
even  if  held  twice  in  a  period  of  six  hours  has  no  bearing  whatever  on 
the  case.  Whether  the  earlier  P  tradition  had  something  of  the  nature 
of  14:  57-59  in  place  of  the  indefinite  "many  things"  of  ver.  3,  or  not, 
historically  we  must  account  for  Pilate's  condemnation  of  Jesus  by  the 
priests'  denunciation  of  him  as  a  messianic  agitator.  Such  he  had  in 
fact  become,  in  the  priests'  estimation,  by  his  invasion  of  their  author- 
ity in  the  temple,  11:  27-33. 

Ver.  2.  Thou  sayest.  A  qualified  affirmative.  In  the  replica, 
14:  62,  R  makes  it  absolute.  Here  the  question  relates  to  political 
claims.  Jesus  surely  did  not  refuse  to  disclaim  such.  Cf.  Jn.  18:  33-37. 
This  verse  looks  like  an  editorial  supplement.  It  does  not  agree  with 
the  silence  of  Jesus  in  ver.  5  and  anticipates  ver.  3. 

Ver.  5.  Jesus'  silence  before  a  hopelessly  prejudiced  tribunal  may 
be  a  historical  trait.  He  knew  Pilate  was  not  deceived  by  the  mis- 
representations of  the  priests.  The  hearing  would  be  public  and  report 
of  it  could  reach  the  brotherhood  in  later  times. 

Vers.  6-15.  The  Offer  of  Jesus  or  Barabbas.  We  have  no  reason 
for  casting  doubt  on  the  historicity  of  this  tradition,  however  signifi- 
cant Mark's  dismissal  of  the  matter  of  Pilate's  examination  of  the 
prisoner  with  a  few  brief  and  general  statements,  to  dwell  upon  the 
Jews'  choice  of  a  national  hero.  Lk.  23:  1-16  and  Jn.  18:  28-37  supply 
the  gap  by  lengthy  elaborations  in  the  interest  of  proving  the  non- 
political  character  of  Christianity.  Mark  is  not  attempting  to  gratify 
historical  enquiries  for  the  grounds  of  Jesus'  condemnation,  but  to 
explain  to  unbelievers  why  he  was  rejected  by  the  Jews  and  crucified 
by  Pilate.  If  he  had  data  beyond  the  mere  fact  that  Jesus  was  handed 
over  to  Pilate  by  the  chief  priests  and  executed  as  "the  King  of  the 
Jews,"  he  takes  no  interest  in  them.  He  simply  knows  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  which  to  the  Jews  is  blasphemy,  and  to  the  Romans 


15*7-14 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


219 


7  him.  And  there  was  one  called  Barabbas* 
(lying)  bound  with  them  that  had  made 
insurrection,  men  who  in  the  insurrection 

8  had  committed  murder.  And  the  multi- 
tude went  up  and  began  to  ask  him  (to 

9  do)  as  he  was  wont  to  do  unto  them.  And 
Pilate  answered  them,  saying,  Will  ye  that 
I  release  unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jews? 

10  For  he  perceived  that  for  envy  the  chief 

11  priests  had  delivered  him  up.  But  the 
chief  priests  stirred  up  the  multitude,  that 
he   should   rather  release   Barabbas   unto 

12  them.  And  Pilate  again  answered  and 
said  unto  them,  What  then  shall  I  do  unto 
him  whom  ye  call  the  King  of  the  Jews? 

13  And  they  cried  out  again,  Crucify  him. 

14  And  Pilate  said  unto  them,  Why,  what 
evil  hath  he  done?     But  they  cried  out 


treason.  The  story  of  Pilate's  offer  to  release  Jesus,  met  by  the  Jews' 
cry  for  Barabbas,  convicts  both  of  insincerity. 

Ver.  6.  A  custom  not  referred  to  elsewhere,  but  in  line  with  the 
Roman  policy  of  conciliation. 

Ver.  7.  Barabbas  (in  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  of  Matthew  called  Jesus 
Bar-rabban,  i.e.,  son  of  the  rabbi)  belonged  to  the  class  of  outlaws  of  the 
type  of  the  Saxon  Robin  Hood.  Such  outlaw  heroes  tend  to  flourish 
through  popular  connivance  in  countries  subject  to  a  foreign  yoke.  In 
Galilee  and  the  Lejjan  region  of  Decapolis  they  had  been  suppressed  by 
the  vigorous  action  of  the  Herods.  In  Judaea  the  wild  region  which 
had  sheltered  David's  band  of  outlaws  still  afforded  room  for  similar 
brigand-patriots.  Mark  intends  by  his  description  of  this  popular  hero 
as  an  insurrectionist  and  murderer  to  throw  upon  the  Jews  themselves 
the  odium  of  the  charge  which  they  bring  against  the  Christians,  and 
under  which  they  had  procured  the  condemnation  of  Jesus. 

Ver.  10  explains  why  Pilate  could  at  the  same  time  accord  to  Jesus 
the  title,  alleged  to  be  treasonable,  "King  of  the  Jews,"  and  yet  in  the 
same  breath  offer  to  release  him.  He  recognized  through  the  trans- 
parent pretext  of  the  accusers  the  "envy,"  i.e.,  jealousy  of  encroach- 
ment upon  their  supremacy  (11 :  28),  which  really  prompted  the  charge. 
Note  the  fivefold  recurrence  in  vers.  2,  9,  12,  18,  and  26  of  the  title 
"King  of  the  Jews." 

Vers.  11-15.  The  threefold  attempt  of  Pilate  to  resist  the  pressure 
of  Jewish  hatred  serves  to  exhibit  the  general  feeling  of  the  Church, 
at  least  in  the  Pauline  field,  on  which  side  sympathy  could  more  reason- 
ably be  sought.  The  Jews  with  all  the  early  apologists  are  possessed 
with  implacable  hatred.  The  Roman  governors,  unless  grossly  under 
the  malignant  influence  of  Jewish  jealousy,  could  easily  be  made  to  see 
the  perfect  harmlessness  of  Christianity,  and  would  be  naturally  dis- 
posed to  protect  its  adherents.  This  is  the  attitude  of  Paul  (cf .  I  Thess. 
2:  15,  16  with  Rom.  13:  1-7),  of  I  Pt.  4:  12-19,  and  of  Acts  (cf.  14:  2, 
19;  17:  5,  13;  18: 12;  19:  33;  20:  3;  21:  27;  22:  30;  23:  1;  25:  2,  3,  15,  16; 


220 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       15: 15-20 


15  exceedingly,  Crucify  him.  And  Pilate, 
^wishing  to  content  the  multitude,]  released 
unto  them  Barabbas,  and  delivered  Jesus, 
when  he  had  scourged  him,  to  be  crucified. 

16  And  the  soldiers  led  him 
away  within  the  court,  which  is  the  2Prae- 
torium;  and  they  call  together  the  whole 

17  3band.  And  they  clothe  him  with  purple, 
and  plaiting  a  crown  of  thorns,  they  put  it 

18  on  him;  and  they  began  to  salute  him,  Hail, 

19  King  of  the  Jews!  And  they  smote  his 
head  with  a  reed,  and  did  spit  upon  him, 
*[and  bowing  their  knees  worshipped  him.] 

20  And  when  they  had  mocked  him,  they  took 
off  from  him  the  purple,  and  put  on  him 
his  garments.  And  they  lead  him  out  to 
crucify  him. 


1 18  var.  omit  [  ]. 


2  Or,  palace. 


3  Or,  cohort. 


Vers.l6-20=Mt. 
27 : 27-31 

R(X) 
Cf.  Lk.  23:  6-12 


28: 19  with  18:  14-17;  19:  31,  37-41;  23: 26-30;  24:  23-26,  27;  25: 16, 
25-27;  26:  30-32;  28:  30,  31).  Not  until  the  Jewish-Christian  book  of 
Revelation  (95  a.d.)  is  Rome  regarded  as  an  implacable  foe. 

Vers.  16-20.  Mockery  by  the  Soldiers.  The  attitude  of  ridicule, 
which  is  that  of  the  average  Roman  to  the  claims  of  "the  King  of  the 
Jews,"  is  best  met  by  exhibiting  the  ridicule  itself  in  the  light  of  the 
deep  and  tragic  "irony"  of  Euripides.  Hence  the  practical  value 
which  preserves  and  dilates  upon  this  otherwise  comparatively  trifling 
incident.  The  evangelist  knows  at  least  the  coarse  humor  in  which  the 
barracks  are  wont  to  indulge  toward  condemned  prisoners  in  their 
charge,  and  may  perhaps  have  had  some  more  or  less  trustworthy  tra- 
dition of  what  went  on  in  the  court-yard  of  the  governor's  residence, 
which  served  as  barracks  for  the  Roman  cohort  when  in  garrison,  or 
during  the  governor's  attendance  from  Ca^sarea.  At  least  there  is  noth- 
ing improbable  in  the  story,  in  view  of  the  popular  disposition  which 
led  to  similar  mockery  in  Alexandria  in  38  a.d.  of  Agrippa's  aspirations 
to  be  King  of  the  Jews. 1 

Ver.  16.  "Which  is  the  Prastorium.  To  Roman  readers  this  would 
mean,  "This  was  the  barracks."  The  trial  takes  place  in  the  open  air 
in  front  of  the  residence  ("court"),  at  a  spot  where  the  bema,  or  "judg- 
ment-seat," was  set  on  a  "pavement"  (Jn.  19:  13),  or  mosaic  floor, 
made  for  the  purpose  of  public  hearings,  and  probably  still  shown  in 
the  period  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  (ca.  110  a.d.).  Whether  at  this  time 
Pilate's  residence  was  in  the  citadel  of  the  Antonia,  at  the  northwest 
angle  of  the  temple  area,  or  in  Herod's  palace,  near  the  present  Tower 
of  David  by  the  Jaffa  Gate,  is  uncertain. 

Ver.  17.  Purple.  A  mantle  having  the  imperial  color.  A  crown  of 
thorns.  The  object  is  not  to  inflict  pain,  but  merely  derisive.  The 
"thorn"  is  a  weed  with  small  briars  offering  itself  as  a  convenient  sub- 
stitute for  the  diadem,  which  sometimes  took  the  form  of  a  wreath. 


1  Philo,  In  Flaccum,  5,  6. 


J5x2J-24        THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  221 


21  And  they  Compel  one  passing  by, 
Simon  of  Gyrene,  coming  from  the  country, 
the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus,  to  go 
(with  them) ,  that  he  might  bear  his  cross. 

22  And  they  bring  him  unto  the  place  Gol- 
gotha, which  is,  being  interpreted,  The  place 

23  of  a  skull.  And  they  offered  him  wine  min- 
gled with  myrrh:  but  he  received  it  not. 

24  And  they  crucify  him,  and  part  his  gar- 
ments among  them,  casting  lots  upon  them, 

1  Gr.  impress. 


Ver.  21=Mt.  27: 
32=L,k.  23:  26 

(X) 


Vers.22-32=Mt. 
27:33-44= 
Uc.  23:33-43 

R(X) 
(With  ver.  23 
cf.  Lk.  23:  27- 
31) 


Vers.  21-32.  The  Crucifixion.  The  most  tragic  scene  of  all  is 
pathetically  wanting  in  those  "traits  of  the  eye-witness"  which  are 
held  to  mark  the  Petrine  tradition.  The  only  data  which  rise  above  the 
level  of  inferences  from  "prophecy,"  current  practice,  or  conditions, 
and  legendary  symbolism  are  the  impressment  of  Simon,  the  super- 
scription on  the  cross,  and  the  expiring  cry.  For  these  we  have  the 
supremely  important  attestation  of  two  individuals  known  to  the 
readers  of  the  Gospel,  perhaps  to  the  entire  Christian  Church.  To 
identify  the  Rufus  here  mentioned  with  the  Rufus  of  Rom.  16:  13  is 
precarious  in  the  extreme  and  unimportant.  Not  so  the  fact  that  two 
well-known  witnesses  had  it  from  their  father  that  he  had  accom- 
panied Jesus  to  Golgotha. 

Ver.  21.  The  impressment  was  perhaps  due  to  the  fainting  of  Jesus, 
for  custom  required  the  victim  to  carry  the  transverse  beam  to  the 
place  of  crucifixion,  where  the  upright  would  be  found  fixed  in  the 
ground.  But  Mark  says  nothing  of  special  weakness,  and  the  cen- 
turion may  have  been  prompted  by  ordinary  humanity,  the  punishment 
inflicted  on  Jesus  being  so  manifestly  less  applicable  to  his  case  than 
to  the  robbers  who  went  along.  Coming  from  the  country.  If  the 
strict  sense  "from  the  field"  could  be  insisted  on  this  would  prove  our 
contention  that  the  crucifixion  was  not  on  Nisan  15,  a  day  on  which 
no  labor  might  be  done.     The  expression  is  ambiguous. 

Ver.  22.  Golgotha.  A  "place"  (not  "hill"),  which  from  its 
contour  or  otherwise  had  received  this  designation.  Identifications 
are  almost  purely  fanciful;  it  appears,  however,  from  Heb.  13:  12  that 
the  spot  was  "outside  the  gate,"  doubtless  near  where  the  great  north 
road  has  always  entered  the  city,  not  far  from  the  present  Damascus 
Gate.  Only  the  determination  of  the  line  of  the  so-called  "second 
wall"  can  decide  whether  the  claims  of  the  Church  of  the  Sepulcher 
(ca.  320  a.d.)  to  mark  the  spot  come  within  the  range  of  possibility. 

Ver.  23.  The  drugged  cup  of  wine,  intended  to  dull  the  suffering  of 
the  victim,  was  a  work  of  mercy  taken  as  their  own  by  the  women  of 
Jerusalem.  Luke,  who  has  no  reference  to  the  cup  of  wine,  introduces 
at  the  corresponding  point  a  saying  of  Jesus  to  the  "daughters  of  Jeru- 
salem." He  received  it  not.  Matthew  adds  "when  he  had  tasted  it." 
Jesus  prefers  suffering  with  unclouded  consciousness  to  respite  from 
pain  at  the  cost  of  dulled  faculties,  a  last  touch  of  historic  realism. 
_  Ver.  24.  The  regular  soldiers'  perquisite  of  the  division  of  the  vic- 
tim's garments  is  mentioned  because  of  the  tacit  agreement  with 
"prophecy"  (Ps.  22: 18).  Mark  often  leaves  it  to  the  reader  to  recog- 
nize "fulfillments"  (e.g.,  1:  6;  7:  37). 


222 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      15:25-32 


25  what  each  should  take.     And  it  was  the 

26  third  hour,  and  they  crucified  him.  And 
the  superscription  of  his  accusation  was 

27  written  over,  the  king  of  the  jews.  And 
with  him  they  crucify  two  robbers;  one  on 

29  his  right  hand,  and  one  on  his  left.1  And 
they  that  passed  by  railed  on  him,  wag- 
ging their  heads,  and  saying,  Ha!  thou  that 
destroyest  the  2temple,  and  buildest  it  in 

30  three  days,  save  thyself,  and  come  down 

31  from  the  cross.  In  like  manner 
also  the  chief  priests  mocking  (him)  among 
themselves  with  the  scribes  said,  He  saved 

32  others;  3himself  he  cannot  save.  Let  the 
Christ,  the  King  of  Israel,  now  come  down 
from  the  cross,  that  we  may  see  and  believe. 
And  they  that  were  crucified  with  him 
reproached  him. 

1  Var.  insert  ver.  28,   And  the   scripture  was  fulfilled,  which 
saith,  And  he  was  reckoned  with  transgressors  (see  Lk.  22:  37). 

2  Or,  sanctuary. 

3  Or,  can  he  not  save  himself  t 


Ver.  25.  The  form  is  Semitic,  for  "  it  was  the  third  hour  (9  a.m.) 
when  they  crucified  him."  The  careful  statement  of  the  hour  ap- 
pended after  the  statement  of  fact  in  ver.  24  is  significant  of  ritual 
interest.     See  above,  p.  217. 

Ver.  26.  With  all  the  verbal  variation  the  substance  of  the  official 
verdict  of  Pilate  is  made  certain  by  this  well-attested  statement.  Jesus 
was  condemned  for  aspiring  to  the  Davidic  throne.  Jn.  19:  19-22  sees 
in  the  fact  a  touch  of  sardonic  irony.  Pilate  revenges  himself  on  the 
Jews,  who  have  forced  him  to  a  judicial  murder,  by  holding  up  their 
messianic  hopes  to  contempt.  Possibly  the  spirit  of  the  soldiers' 
mockery  (vers.  16-20)  was  caught  from  their  superiors,  and  accounts 
for  the  extraordinary  form  of  the  titulus  in  this  case.  Certainly  the 
moral  effect  on  would-be  pretenders  entered  into  the  motive.  Doubt- 
less the  title  was  not  without  its  effect  on  Christian  belief  when  the  dis- 
ciples' faith  revived. 

Ver.  27.  The  association  was  probably  intended  to  give  color  to  the 
charge  against  Jesus.  The  "robbers"  are  of  the  type  if  not  com- 
panions of  Barabbas. 

Ver.  29.  Wagging  their  heads,  in  pretended  commiseration  at  so 
great  a  fall.     A  "fulfillment"  of  Ps.  22:  7. 

Vers.  31,  32.  Wellhausen's  suspicions  of  the  historicity  of  these 
verses  are  fully  justified.  The  offer  to  "believe"  in  the  absolute 
sense  implies  the  Pauline  doctrine.  The  mockery  itself  on  the  part 
of  these  high  dignitaries  on  the  sacred  15th  Nisan  is  incredible. 
But  the  representation  is  of  a  piece  with  Mk.  14:  55-64  to  which  it 
forms  the  sequel,  and  a  doublet  to  vers.  29,  30.  Matthew  and  Luke 
develop  the  trait  at  further  length,  Luke  discriminating  between  the 
two  robbers. 


15:33-35        THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  223 


33  And  when  the  sixth  hour 
was  come,  there  was  darkness  over  the 
whole  xland  until  the  ninth  hour. 

34  And  at  the  ninth  hour  Jesus 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  2Eloi,  Eloi,  lama 
sabachthani?  which  is,  being  interpreted, 
My  God,  my  God,  3why  hast  thou  forsaken 

35  me?  And  some  of  them  that  stood  by,  when 
they  heard  it,  said,  Behold,  he  calleth  Elijah. 

1  Or,  earth.  2  p  var.  Eli,  Eli,  lama  zaphthani. 

3  Or,  why  didst  thou  forsake  me  T 


Vers.33=Mt. 
27:45=Lk. 
23:44,45 

(X) 

Vers.34-36=Mt. 

37:46-49= 
Lk.  23:46 

R(X) 
(Cf.  ver.  37) 


Vers.  33-39.  Incidents  of  Jesus'  Death.  Only  the  loud  cry  with 
which  Jesus'  spirit  took  its  flight  has  claims  to  be  a  historic  trait ;  and 
that  in  the  simple  form  of  ver.  37,  not  as  elaborated  in  the  doublet,  vers. 
34-36.  The  supernatural  darkness  (Luke's  theory  of  "eclipse"  is 
incompatible  with  the  season  of  full  moon)  and  the  rending  of  the 
temple  veil  are  symbolic.  The  former  is  a  tacit  "fulfillment"  of  Amos 
8:  9,  the  latter  perhaps  not  a  suggestion  from  Heb.  10:  19-21  (the 
rending  of  Jesus'  flesh  for  the  passage  of  his  spirit  into  God's  presence 
a  removal  of  the  barrier  between  man  and  God),  but  in  view  of  early 
Christian  interpretation1  and  the  parallel  in  Ev.  Hebr.  a  token  of  sor- 
row like  the  veiling  of  the  sun. 

Ver.  34  is  an  interpretation  in  terms  of  Ps.  22:  1  of  ver.  37,  which  Lk. 
23:  46  interprets  in  terms  of  Ps.  31:  6.  Ev.  Petri,  which  interprets  the 
cry  in  a  docetic  sense  as  wrung  from  the  physical  nature  of  Jesus  by 
the  departure  of  his  "power"  ("my  power,  my  power  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me?"),  probably  reflects  the  original  intention  of  this  remark- 
able elaboration  on  the  cry  by  adding  "and  immediately  he  was  taken 
up."  In  Luke  also  the  cry  is  a  commendation  by  Jesus  of  his  spirit  to 
God.  Mark,  who  intermingles  the  utterances  of  the  possessed  and  the 
possessing  demons  (cf.  5:  7-12),  could  certainly  employ  a  similar  dual- 
ism here.  The  words  of  the  cry  are  given  partly  in  Hebrew  by  Matthew, 
wholly  in  Hebrew  by  the  important  Codex  D  in  both  Matthew  and 
Mark.  This  is  alone  consistent  with  the  misunderstanding  of  the  by- 
standers, who  speak  Aramaic;  besides  the  fact  that  the  resemblance 
to  the  name  "Elias"  only  appears  in  the  Hebrew.  Nevertheless,  even 
were  D's  reading  adopted  we  have  no  reason  to  treat  vers.  34-36  as 
other  than  an  early  interpretation  of  the  inarticulate  cry  of  ver.  37. 
The  quotation  in  a  dead  language  of  a  prophecy  supposedly  fulfilled 
at  Jesus'  dying  hour  belongs  with  the  scholasticism  which  in  Jn.  19:  28 
records  the  alleged  utterance  "I  thirst"  as  a  "fulfillment."  It  has  no 
place  in  real  history.  The  whole  elaboration  vers.  34-36  merely  dupli- 
cates ver.  37,  combining  with  it  the  incident  of  the  offer  of  vinegar 
(the  soldiers'  posca)  to  drink,  a  possible  historic  element  but  certainly 
regarded  as  a  "fulfillment"  of  Ps.  69:  21.  The  Roman  soldier  who  can 
alone  perform  the  act  of  ver.  36  cannot  be  supposed  to  know  the  Elias 
legend,  but  may  be  supposed  to  be  answering  the  bystanders. 

Ver.  33.  The  period  of  darkness  begins  as  required  by  the  "prophecy" 
(Amos  8:  9)  and  covers  the  period  of  supreme  sorrow  for  the  Church. 

Ver.  35.  The  story  of  a  misinterpretation  of  the  cry  rests  upon  the 
older  interpretation  of  ver.  37  in  ver.  34,  and  presupposes  the  use  of 

1  Clem.  Recogn.  I,  xli,  cited  by  Wellhausen. 


224 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY       15*  36-39 


36  And  one  ran,  and  rilling  a  sponge  full  of 
vinegar,  put  it  on  a  reed,  and  gave  him  to 
drink,  laying,  Let  be;  let  us  see  whether 
Elijah  cometh  to  take  him  down. 

37  And  Jesus  uttered  a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up 

38  the  ghost.  And  the  veil  of  the 
Hemple  was  rent  in  twain  from  the  top  to 

39  the  bottom.  And  when  the 
centurion,  which  stood  by  over  against  him, 
saw  that  he  3so  gave  up  the  ghost,  he  said, 
Truly  this  man  was  4the  Son  of  God. 


1  Sinaitic  Syriac,  And  they  said. 

*  Var.  so  cried  out,  and  gave  up  the  ghost. 


2  Or,  sanctuary. 
*  Or,  a  son  of  God. 


Ver.  37=Mt.  37: 
50=Lk.  23:46 
(P) 
Ver.  38= Mt.  27: 
51=  Lk.  23:45 
(X) 
Ver.  39=Mt.  27: 
54=Lk.  23:47 
R(P) 


Hebrew,  as  a  dying  Cranmer  might  quote  the  Vulgate.  R's  interest 
in  preserving  the  trait  is  similar  to  the  "irony"  of  vers.  16-20.  "Elias 
is  indeed  to  come  and  restore  all  things."  Early  Christian  eschatology 
expects  him  to  precede  the  second  Coming  as  he  had  the  first,  in  the 
person  of  John  the  Baptist. '  The  ignorant  exclamation  foretells  the 
great  reality  to  come. 

Ver.  38.     For  the  symbolism  see  comment  on  the  paragraph. 

Ver.  39.  Just  what  is  covered  by  the  word  "so"  is  not  clear.  Per- 
haps only  the  cry,  as  assumed  in  the  variant  reading.  The  confession 
itself  stands  as  a  conclusion  to  Jesus'  earthly  career,  fitly  offsetting  the 
Superscription  and  Prologue  1:  1-13.  The  centurion  cannot  say  the 
Son  of  God,  because  he  is  as  yet  ignorant  that  the  superhuman  char- 
acter which  he  recognizes  in  Jesus  is  but  fabled  in  its  attribution  to  his 
own  demi-gods  and  heroes.  The  heathen  form  of  utterance  makes  the 
tribute  but  the  stronger.  The  Christian  reader  adds  for  himself,  Yes; 
and  other  there  is  none. 


Justin  M.,  Dial. 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  225 


BURIAL  AND  EMPTY  TOMB 
PARAPHRASE 

Subdivision  c.  15:40 — 16:8.  Although  Jesus'  disciples 
were  not  witnesses  of  the  end,  having  scattered  and  fled,  the  evi- 
dence of  his  bodily  resurrection  is  afforded  by  the  women  who 
had  followed  him.  These  saw  from  far  off  how  Jesus  was 
honorably  buried,  and  clearly  identified  the  place.  This  was  a 
tomb  hewn  in  the  rock,  closed  by  a  massive  block  of  stone.  Jesus 
was  laid  there  by  stranger  hands  out  of  piety.  Yet  when  the 
women  came  again  on  the  third  day  they  found  the  tomb  empty 
and  received  an  angelic  message  to  the  disciples  announcing 
Jesus'  resurrection. 

15:  40-47.  The  women  present  at  Jesus'  crucifixion  were 
those  who  had  followed  him  in  Galilee,  and  given  of  their  prop- 
erty for  his  support,  Mary  of  Magdala,  and  Mary  the  daughter 
of  James  the  little,  mother  of  Joses,  and  Salome.  There  were 
also  many  other  women  that  had  come  up  with  him  from  Gal- 
ilee. (So  these  were  witnesses  of  his  burial  also.)  For  at 
sunset,  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  having  been  a  Friday  (and  the 
Jews  counting  it  a  defilement  that  dead  bodies  should  hang 
upon  the  cross  through  the  day) ,  there  came  a  devout  member  of 
the  council,  one  of  those  who  were  in  sympathy  with  the  gospel, 
Joseph,  a  man  of  Arimathea,  and  asked  leave  of  Pilate  to  re- 
move the  body  of  Jesus;  which  Pilate  granted,  when  by  inquiry 
of  the  centurion  he  had  fully  assured  himself  that  Jesus  was 
indeed  dead.  So  Joseph  bought  linen  cloth  in  which  to  wind 
the  body,  and  taking  it  down  prepared  it  for  burial  and  laid  it 
in  a  tomb  hewn  in  the  rock,  rolling  a  great  stone  against  the  en- 
trance. Two  of  the  women,  therefore,  Mary  of  Magdala,  and 
Mary  the  daughter  of  Joses  (!) ,  saw  the  place  and  could  identify 
the  tomb. 

16:  1-8.  So  then  the  next  evening,  after  the  sabbath  was 
past,  Mary  of  Magdala,  and  Mary  the  daughter  of  James  (sic) 
and  Salome  bought  spices,  intending  to  go  to  the  tomb  on  the 
morrow  and  anoint  the  body  of  Jesus.  Thus  it  was  that  just 
after  sunrise  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  they  came  to  the  sepul- 
cher.  And  they  had  been  debating  on  the  way  how  they  should 
find  help  to  roll  away  the  great  stone  from  the  entrance.  But 
as  they  came  near  they  saw  it  already  rolled  away,  great  as  it 
was,  and  entering  the  tomb  they  saw  a  young  man  sitting  on  the 
right  side  clothed  in  white.     And  as  they  stood  amazed,  he  ad- 


226  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 

dressed  them,  quieting  their  wonder  and  declaring  his  knowledge 
of  their  purpose.  Then  showing  them  the  place  where  Jesus 
had  been  laid,  he  declared  his  resurrection,  reminding  them 
how  Jesus  had  promised  after  his  resurrection  to  precede  the 
disciples  to  Galilee,  and  bidding  them  deliver  this  message  to 
Peter  and  the  rest,  that  they  hasten  thither,  where  they  should 
see  him  as  he  promised.  The  women,  however,  did  not  deliver 
the  message,  but  went  out  from  the  tomb  and  fled  in  trembling 
and  astonishment  that  kept  them  dumb. 


SUBDIVISION  C    15:40— 16:8.— CRITICISM 

The  three  paragraphs  which  follow  the  culminating  scene  of  the 
tragedy  are  all  concerned  with  the  story  of  the  Empty  Tomb,  a  com- 
plete innovation,  as  the  concluding  words  suggest, *  upon  the  older  tra- 
dition, which  after  narration  of  the  tragedy  reverted  to  the  turning 
again  of  Peter.2  Vers.  40,  41  introduce  in  place  of  the  sons  of  Simon  of 
Cyrene  a  group  of  new  sponsors  for  the  tradition.  These  are  the  min- 
istering women  of  Lk.  8:  1-3,  who  appear  now  for  the  first  time  in  this 
Gospel  in  the  role  of  identifiers  of  the  tomb.  The  story  of  the  Burial,3 
with  its  sequel, 4  bears  the  marks  of  Palestinian  origin  in  its  local  names 
and  concrete  description;  but  is  certainly  of  secondary  derivation.  This 
is  shown  partly  by  its  complete  absence  from  the  Pauline  tradition5; 
partly  by  its  irreconcilability  with  the  earlier  context ;  for  the  disciples 
who  had  scattered  and  fled6  are  now  conceived  as  together  in  Jerusalem, 
needing  a  message  to  direct  them  to  go  to  Galilee.  The  women  also 
intend  to  prepare  Jesus'  body  for  burial,7  although  it  had  already  re- 
ceived better  and  more  elaborate  sepulture.8  Finally  we  note  this 
author's  pragmatic  tendency  toward  the  concrete  and  tangible  type  of 
resurrection  belief  such  as  the  later  legend  develops,  and  his  dethrone- 
ment of  Peter.  In  R's  hands  the  Petrine  tradition  is  ceasing  to  be 
individually  Petrine  in  the  historic  sense,  and  becoming  official.  It  is 
becoming  less  spiritual,  and  more  crassly  material.  No  longer  is  the 
manifestation  of  the  Lord  to  Simon  the  foundation  of  the  Christian 
faith  and  the  rallying  point  of  the  "brethren,"  bringing  them  back 
from  Galilee  to  experience  together  in  Jerusalem  the  Pentecostal  evi- 
dence of  the  Lord's  risen  power  and  the  sense  of  their  apostolic  com- 
mission in  the  "baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Henceforth  the  resur- 
rection faith  is  to  be  built  upon  the  empty  tomb  shown  in  Jerusalem 
on  authority  of  the  women;  the  journey  to  Galilee  and  return,  an 
episode  already  emptied  of  meaning,  is  soon  to  be  completely  cancelled. 
Later  still  even  the  appearance  to  Peter  and  the  eleven  disciples  becomes 
of  secondary  importance  and  soon  suffers  the  fate  of  cancellation 
which  it  prepared  for  its  predecessor,  the  appearance  to  Peter.  The 
substitute  previously  interjected  by  R  for  the  rallying  of  the  eleven  by 
Peter  in  Galilee9  and  the  subsequent  promise  of  the  angel10  show  what 
R  made  of  the  original  story.  Mt.  28:  16-20  reconstructs  it  from  the 
implications  practically  as  well  as  a  modern  could  do.     But  in  Matthew's 

1 16:  8.  2  1  Cor.  15:  5;  Lk.  22:  32;  24:  34.  s  Vers.  42-47. 

*  16:  1-8.  5 1  Cor.  15:  3-7.  «  14:  27-50.  7  16:  1.  8  15:  46. 

9  14:  28;  cf.  Lk.  22:  32.  i°  16:  7. 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  227 

time  the  Petrine  story  had  already  been  suppressed,  doubtless  because 
it  seemed  too  colorless  and  general.  Our  earliest  mss.  leave  the  gap 
unfilled.  Later  authorities  supply  it  by  one  of  two  varying  forms  of 
ending,  briefly  summarizing  the  appearances  and  great  commission, 
or  place  the  so-called  longer  and  shorter  ending  side  by  side,  giving  the 
reader  his  choice. 

In  reality  the  substance  of  what  these  endings  supply  is  imperatively 
demanded  by  the  Gospel.  The  story  did  not  end  with  the  tragedy  of 
Calvary,  any  more  than  with  the  unfulfilled  promise  of  the  young  man 
at  the  tomb.  In  some  way  the  links  were  forged  which  brought  the 
story  and  the  reader  in  the  Church  at  Rome  into  direct  relation,  so  that 
he  could  say  as  he  rose  from  the  volume,  "This  is  my  faith.  My  knowl- 
edge of  it  comes  to  me  by  such  and  such  an  authoritative  line  of  trans- 
mission." If  the  evangelist  did  not  himself  continue  the  story  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  which  he  predicts  in  1 :  8,  and  the  proclamation  of 
the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  which  he  refers  to  in  13:  10  and  14:  9,  and  the 
testimony  of  its  great  Apostle  before  governors  and  kings  which  he 
employs  in  6:  17-21  and  looks  forward  to  in  13:  9,  then  at  least  he 
writes  in  view  of  some  other  means  of  acquaintance  with  these  events 
in  possession  of  his  readers.  His  story,  in  other  words,  was  not  inde- 
pendent of  that  narrative  of  how  the  Gospel  came  to  Rome,  which  for 
us  is  embodied  in  the  book  of  Acts. 

Because  it  was  never  intended  to  stand  apart  from  this  story  of  the 
manifestation  to  Peter,  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  proclamation  of  the 
gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  establishment  in  Rome — in  other  words  was  no 
mere  half-history,  limited  to  the  story  of  Jesus'  earthly  career,  but  cor- 
responded to  the  double  treatise  of  Luke,  the  narrative  in  its  primal 
form  could  come  in  its  first  part  to  such  a  tragic  'preliminary  conclusion 
as  15:  39.  With  the  development  of  a  disposition  to  set  the  earthly 
career  of  Jesus  in  a  category  by  itself,  perhaps  promoted  by  the  appear- 
ance of  such  works  as  Luke's,  or  those  of  his  predecessors  in  the  field  of 
"Acts,"  "Predications,"  and  "Peregrinations"  of  the  Apostles,  came 
the  necessity  for  supplementing  the  story  at  the  close  to  adapt  it  for 
separate  circulation.  What  now  follows  after  15:  39  was  added,  to- 
gether with  the  story,  now  suppressed  but  echoed  still  in  Jn.  21 ;  Lk. 
5:  4-8,  and  Ev.  Petri,  of  the  appearance  to  Peter  and  the  other  disciples. 
This  story  in  turn  was  cut  off  after  16:  8  with  the  two  rival  and  still 
later  appendages  to  replace  its  conclusion. 


228 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      15:40-43 


40  A  ND  there  were  also  women  beholding 
jLA.    from  afar:  among  whom  (were)  both 

Mary     Magdalene,     and     Mary     the 
mother  of  James  the  1less  and  of  Joses, 

41  and  Salome;  who,  when  he  was  in  Galilee, 
followed  him,  and  ministered  unto  him; 
and  many  other  women  which  came  up 
with  him  unto  Jerusalem. 

42  And  when  even  was  now  come,  because  it 
was  the  Preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before 

43  the  sabbath,  there  came  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thaea,  a  councillor  of  honourable  estate,  who 
also  himself  was  looking  for  the  kingdom 


i  Gr.  little. 


Vers  .40,  41= 
Mt.  27 :  55,  56 
=Lk.  23:48, 
49 

R  (Q™) 
(Cf.  Lk.  8:  1-3) 


Vers.42-47=Mt. 
27:57-61  = 
Lk.  23:50-56 

R(X) 


Vers.  40,  41.  Ministering  Women.  New  sponsors  for  the  tradi- 
tion are  now  introduced,  for  with  Subdivision  c  we  pass  to  the  new 
theme  of  the  tradition  of  the  Holy  Sepuleher.  The  statements  of  ver. 
41  show  connection  with,  if  not  dependence  on,  the  source  of  Lk.  8: 1-3. 

Ver.  40.  The  names  are  all  strange  to  the  reader,  and  only  partially 
explained  by  comparison  of  the  Gospels.     Ver.  41  helps  but  lamely. 

Vers.  42^17.  The  Burial.  A  Jerusalem  tradition,  whose  personages, 
vers.  43,  47,  and  localities,  43,  46,  are  locally  known.  Its  phraseology 
("looking  for  the  kingdom  of  God,"  cf.  Lk.  2:  25;  "the  Preparation") 
requires  explanation,  which  in  one  case,  ver.  42,  is  given;  though  the 
explanation  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  context,  since  the  sabbath, 
if  not  already  begun  (see  on  ver.  42),  would  necessarily  have  begun  be- 
fore the  task  could  be  carried  out.  The  description  of  details  in  vers. 
44-46  looks  forward  to  the  scene  of  16:  1-8.  The  reader  is  to  be  as- 
sured that  Jesus  was  certainly  dead  (Jn.  19:  31-34  elaborates  the  point), 
that  there  was  no  collusion  (ver.  43),  and  no  mistake  (vers.  46,  47). 
The  part  played  by  the  linen  cloth  is  not  here  apparent.  In  Lk.  24:  12 
(textually  doubtful),  Jn.  19:  40;  20:  5-7,  and  Ev.  Hebr.  it  forms  part  of 
the  circumstantial  evidence.  Its  mention  here  can  hardly  be  without 
some  relation  to  this  function  in  the  tradition. 

Ver.  42.  When  even  was  come.  The  beginning  of  the  sabbath,  cf. 
1:32.  The  Preparation.  Here  taken  as  =  Friday.  But  as  the  sab- 
bath was  already  begun,  the  explanation  does  not  explain.  Can  the 
original  sense  have  been  as  in  Jn.  19:  14,  i.e.,  14th  Nisan?  The  sense 
would  then  be,  Because  the  morrow  was  the  great  feast-day  (Jn.  "a 
high  sabbath")  they  made  haste  to  remove  Jesus'  body  from  the  cross, 
although  the  legal  sabbath  had  already  begun. 

Ver.  43.  Arimathaea.  Perhaps  the  same  as  Ramathaim-Zophim 
of  I  Sam.  1:1.  If  R  himself  knew  where  the  place  was  he  has  not  en- 
lightened his  readers.  More  probably  he  tells  the  tale  as  it  was  told  to 
him.  A  councillor  of  honorable  estate.  (Gr.,  "honorable".)  Luke, 
"good  and  righteous."  Matthew,  "rich,"  adjusting  to  Is.  53:  9-  The 
Greek  word  {euschemon)  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  in 
this  sense  except  in  Acts  13:  50;  17:  12.  John  adds  the  famous  rich 
man  of  the  period,  Naq-Dimon.  The  characterization  shows  that 
the  disciples  had  no  complicity  in  the  matter,  while  the  intervention 
is  explained  by  the  man's  piety.     Looking  for  the   kingdom  of  God. 


15:44—16:1    THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


229 


of  God;  and  he  boldly  went  in  unto  Pilate, 

44  and  asked  for  the  body  of  Jesus.  And 
Pilate  marvelled  if  he  were  already  dead: 
and  calling  unto  him  the  centurion,  he 
asked  him  whether  he  xhad  been  any  while 

45  dead.  And  when  he  learned  it  of  the  cen- 
turion, he  granted  the  corpse  to  Joseph. 

46  And  he  bought  a  linen  cloth,  and  taking 
him  down,  wound  him  in  the  linen  cloth, 
and  laid  him  in  a  tomb  which  had  been 
hewn  out  of  a  rock;  and  he  rolled  a  stone 

47  against  the  door  of  the  tomb.  And  Mary 
Magdalene  and  Mary  the  (mother)  of  2Joses 
beheld  where  he  was  laid. 

16  3[And  when  the  sabbath  was  past,  Mary 
Magdalene,  and  Mary  the  (mother)  of 
James,  and  Salome,]  bought  spices,  that 


1  Var.  were  already  dead. 
3  /3  var.  And  they  went  and. 


2  P  var.  James. 


16:l-8=Mt.  28; 
l-8=Lk.  24: 
1-9 


Probably  regarded  by  R  as  equivalent  to  "a  Christian."  But  cf. 
Lk.  2:  25. 

Ver.  45.  Granted  the  corpse.  Roman  administration  cherished  no 
hostility  to  the  dead.  Relatives  or  friends  had  only  to  make  themselves 
known  to  receive  all  necessary  permission.  The  application  of  this  com- 
plete stranger,  whose  act  even  the  women  only  witness  from  a  distance, 
corroborates  the  other  evidences  of  complete  desertion  on  the  part  of 
Jesus'  followers. 

Ver.  47.  Mary  the  (mother?)  of  Joses.  The  witnesses  are  not  the 
same  as  in  ver.  40  and  16:  1,  though  the  /3  text  partially  assimilates  by 
reading  "Mary  the  (  )  of  James."  Wellhausen  restores  on  the  basis  of 
this  text  "Mary  Magdalene  and  Mary  the  (daughter1)  of  Joses  (Joseph) 
beheld  where  he  was  laid  and  brought  spices  that,"  etc.  Ver.  40  is 
regarded  as  a  combination  by  R  of  a  form  of  the  tradition  wherein  this 
Mary  is  "daughter  of  Joses,"  with  another  in  which  she  is  called 
"daughter  of  James."     One  of  these  will  also  have  added  "Salome." 

16:  1-8.  The  Empty  Tomb.  Message  of  the  Angel.  Later  forms 
of  the  resurrection  story  become  more  and  more  concrete  and  material- 
istic as  the  conflict  sharpens  between  Jewish-Christians  who  insist  on  a 
resurrection  of  the  flesh  (so  the  "Apostles'  Creed"  in  the  Greek),  and 
the  Greek  believers,  who  are  considered  by  their  opponents  to  "deny 
the  resurrection"  because  they  hold  that  "when  we  die  our  souls  are 
taken  to  heaven,"  but  hold  to  no  re-incorporation.  Paul  already  medi- 
ates in  I  Cor.  15  between  those  who  hold  to  reembodiment  and  those 
who  ask,  "With  what  body  do  they  come?",  by  conceding  that  "flesh 
and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  Kingdom  of  God,"  but  advancing  the 
theory  of  a  "spiritual  body."  The  orthodox  Church  of  80-180  a.d.s 
however,  does  not  follow  this  mystical  lead,  but  insists  on  a  more  and 
more  concrete  and  tangible  reality.    The  Pauline  doctrine  is  repre- 


1  "Mother"  cannot   be   grammatically  supplied.      Cf.  the  addition  in   Jn.  19:  25 
of  Jesus'  mother,  also  a  "Mary  the  (wife)  of  Joseph." 


230  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  16:2 


2  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.  And 
very  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
they  come  to  the  tomb  when  the  sun  was 


sented  in  9:  2-10  (note  ver.  106).  Here  in  the  suppression  of  the 
Petrine  tradition — a  spiritual  appearance  in  Galilee;  cf.  I  Cor.  15:5,  8 — 
and  substitution  of  that  which  has  the  disappearance  of  the  body  from 
the  tomb  in  Jerusalem  as  its  most  vital  element,  we  witness  the  begin- 
nings of  the  triumph  of  the  second-century  materialism.  Later  de- 
velopments in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  contend  against  the  new  ob- 
jections raised  by  the  change,  eliminate  entirely  the  flight  to  Galilee, 
and  add  more  and  more  to  the  proofs  of  concreteness ;  Jesus  eats,  they 
handle  his  body,  etc.  The  present  narrative  is  as  certainly  earlier  than 
the  elaborations  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  as  it  is  certainly  later 
than  the  series  of  visions  in  I  Cor.  15:  3-8  which  are  to  Paul  the  proof 
of  the  living  and  glorified  Christ.  Manifestly  constructed  as  it  is  only 
for  insertion  between  the  Crucifixion  and  a  modified  form  of  the  appear- 
ance to  Peter  in  Galilee,  it  has  led  ultimately  by  gradual  stages  (Mat- 
thew adds  a  duplicate  of  the  angelic  message  by  Jesus'  own  appearance 
to  the  women  near  the  grave,  Luke  adds  inspection  by  the  apostles, 
Jn.  20  elaborates  both)  to  the  well-nigh  complete  suppression  of  the 
Apostles'  experiences  in  Galilee  in  favor  of  the  women's  in  Jerusalem. 
Only  in  Mt.  28:  16-20,  in  the  appendices  to  John  and  Mark,  and  xaEv. 
Petri  have  we  remnants  of  the  Galilean  tradition;  and  even  this  not  in 
the  primitive  form  attested  by  Lk.  22:  32;  24:  34  and  I  Cor.  15:  5  of  a 
vision  of  Peter  communicated  to  the  rest;  but  already  in  the  modified 
form  attested  by  Mk.  14:  28;  16:  8  of  an  appearance  to  Peter  and  the 
eleven. 

Ver.  1.  The  repetition  of  the  names  from  the  preceding  verse  with 
the  addition  that  the  purchase  was  "after  the  sabbath"  seems  to  be 
a  scribal  addition.*  (See  var.)  Ev.  Petri  notes  the  objection  that  it  was 
too  late  for  such  an  idea  to  enter  the  minds  of  the  women,  and  adds 
that  they  were  intending  only  to  "leave  that  which  they  brought  at 
the  door  of  the  sepulcher  as  a  memorial  to  him,  and  to  weep  and  beat 
their  breasts." 

Ver.  2.  The  exact  specification  of  the  day  and  hour  is  for  the  sake 
of  Church  ritual;  cf.  Jn.  21:  4.  The  breaking  of  bread  on  the  Lord's 
day  (Acts  20:  7),  on  this  special  (Easter)  Sunday,  took  place  at  dawn 
(Jn.  21:  13),  *  as  well  as  evening  (Lk.  24:  30).  This  dating  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  phrase  "after  three  days"  (8:  31;  9:  31;  10:  34),  which  the 
parallels  accordingly  change  to  "the  third  day,"  and  also  with  primi- 
tive comparisons  of  Jesus'  issue  from  the  grave  to  the  emergence  of 
Jonah  from  the  belly  of  the  monster  after  "three  days  and  three  nights" 
(Mt.  12:  40),  and  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  (Jn.  2:  19).  These 
phenomena  and  early  celebrations  of  the  resurrection  independently 
of  the  issue  from  the  grave2  indicate  that  the  date  was  not  at  first  thus 
fixed.  The  date  on  the  Lord's  day  is  obtained  from  the  celebration 
of  the  rite  and  not  conversely.  The  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Lord's  day  rests  primarily  on  other  grounds;  perhaps  the 
great  "manifestation  of  the  Lord"  at  Pentecost,  fifty  days  after  the 
Friday  of  the  crucifixion,  and  doubtless  some  forty  (Acts  1 : 3)  after 


1  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  ap.  Drummond,  Auth.  of  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  471. 
In  Egypt  (and  perhaps  the  East  generally)  the  breaking  of  fast  took  place  "from 
the  evening";  in  Rome  and  the  West,  "at  cock  crow." 

2  So  the  Quartodecimans,  see  above,  p.  196. 


J6t3-7 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


231 


risen.  And  they  were  saying  among  them- 
selves, Who  shall  roll  us  away  the  stone 
from  the  door  of  the  tomb?1  2and  looking 
up,  they  see  that  the  stone  is  rolled  back: 
for  it  was  exceeding  great.  And  entering 
into  the  tomb,  they  saw  a  young  man  sit- 
ting on  the  right  side,  arrayed  in  a  white 
robe;  and  they  were  amazed.  And  he 
saith  unto  them,  Be  not  amazed:  ye  seek 
Jesus,  the  Nazarene,  which  hath  been  cruci- 
fied: he  is  risen;  he  is  not  here:  behold,  the 
place  where  they  laid  him!  But  go,  tell 
his  disciples  and  Peter,  He  goeth  before 
you  into  Galilee:  there  shall  ye  see  him,  as 


1  A  Latin  version  adds  here:  But  suddenly  at  the  third  hour 
the  darkness  was  made  day  throughout  the  whole  world,  and  angels 
descended  from  heaven,  and  rising  in  the  brightness  of  the  living 
God  they  ascended  together  with  him:  and  there  was  perpetual 
light. 

2  0  var.  For  it  was  very  great.  And  they  come  and  find  the 
stone  rolled  away. 


the  manifestation  to  Peter;  or  perhaps  on  the  Pauline  equivalence 
Christ = the  First-fruits  (celebrated  on  the  third  day  from  Passover)  of 
the  resurrection.  It  certainly  cannot  have  rested  on  an  experience  of 
women  in  Jerusalem  to  which  Paul  does  not  even  allude,  and  which  as 
Mark  implies  was  at  first  not  known  to  Jesus'  followers. 

Ver.  3.  Note  the  legendary  addition  of  the  Latin  version  after  ver.  3 
(see  var.),  an  evidence  of  the  peculiar  degree  of  exposure  of  this  portion 
of  the  story  to  alteration. 

Ver.  4.  For  it  was  exceeding  great.  The  proper  place  for  this  clause 
is  at  the  end  of  ver.  3,  but  the  misplacement  may  be  due  to  mere  lack 
of  literary  skill.     The  /?  text  corrects.     (See  var.) 

Vers.  5-7.  Romantic  conjectures  have  often  been  made  as  to  the 
origin  of  this  tradition  of  the  women's  experience.  Doubtless  the  story 
grows  out  of  the  identification  of  some  particular  empty  tomb  with  the 
last  resting  place  of  Jesus.  Some  wish  also  to  trace  the  message  of  the 
"young  man"  to  an  actual  incident:  the  women,  searching  for  the  tomb 
seen  at  a  distance  after  nightfall  on  the  second  day  preceding,  come  sud- 
denly upon  a  stranger  who,  divining  the  occasion  of  their  coming,  en- 
deavors to  tell  them  they  have  mistaken  the  place.  When  given  simply 
the  place  of  un verifiable  possibilities  such  conjectures  are  not  objection- 
able. Such  an  origin  for  the  tradition  is  at  least  more  probable  than 
the  actual  coming  of  an  angel.  But  the  late  appearance  of  the  tradi- 
tion makes  it  unreasonable  to  expect  proof  for  either  view.  The  ulti- 
mate derivation  of  the  legends  of  sacred  places  is  almost  never  trace- 
able. Behold  the  place.  Already  a  kind  of  sanctity  attaches  to  the 
spot. 

Ver.  7.  There  shall  ye  see  him  as  he  said  unto  you.  A  reference  to 
14 :  28,  showing  the  celestial  knowledge  of  the  messenger.  The  disciples 
are  assumed  to  be  still  at  Jerusalem.  The  women  are  sent  to  remind 
them  of  the  appointment  in  Galilee.  But  why  were  the  first  manifesta- 
tions in  Galilee,  if  not  because  the  disciples  had  fled  thither?    Certainly 


232  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY  16:8 


8  he  said  unto  you.  And  they  went  out,  and 
fled  from  the  tomb;  for  trembling  and  as- 
tonishment had  come  upon  them:  and  they 
said  nothing  to  any  one;  for  they  were 
afraid. 


not  because  Jesus  wished  to  re-visit  the  home  scenes  for  a  few  days  be- 
fore bringing  the  whole  company  back  to  Jerusalem.  The  whole  Gali- 
lean episode  becomes  senseless  if  we  drop  the  idea  that  the  disciples 
had  fled  thither,  and  is  therefore  logically  cancelled  by  Luke.  This 
verse  implies  a  form  of  the  Gospel  in  which  a  manifestation  to  Peter 
and  the  eleven  (or  seven?  Jn.  21,  Ev.  Petri)  followed  in  Galilee.  It 
proved  equally  unsatisfactory  with  that  which  it  had  superseded  and 
was  cancelled,  leaving  either  a  blank,  or  one,  or  both,  of  the  spurious 
endings  given  below. 

Ver.  8.  The  women's  message  failed  to  be  given  because  of  their 
fear.  The  author  (R)  thus  explains  the  late  appearance  of  the  tradition 
he  brings  forward.  See  comment  on  9:9.  Mt.  28:  9,  10  embodies  a 
doublet  not  required  by  the  preceding  verse  in  which  the  women  are 
already  "running  with  fear  and  great  joy  to  bring  the  disciples  word." 
But  it  is  required  by  Mk.  16:  8,  to  explain  how  the  disciples  neverthe- 
less got  the  message.  The  parallel  tradition  doubtless  grew  out  of  this 
reflection  before  its  incorporation  by  Matthew. 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  233 

ENUMERATION  OF  THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 
PARAPHRASE 

Longer  Appendix.  16: 9-20.  Vers.  9-11.  There  were 
three  resurrection  appearances  before  Jesus'  disciples  loere  con- 
vinced. Immediately  on  issuing  from  the  tomb  Jesus  showed 
himself  to  Mary  of  Magdala,  and  she  carried  the  news  to  the 
disciples,  who  were  together  in  Jerusalem  mourning  and  weep- 
ing; but  they  disbelieved  her. 

Vers.  12,  13.  Again  he  appeared  to  two  disciples  as  they 
were  on  their  way  into  the  country.  And  these,  too,  the  disciples 
disbelieved  when  they  reported  it. 

Vers.  14-18.  Finally  he  appeared  to  the  eleven  themselves 
as  they  were  breaking  bread,  and  reproached  them  for  their  un- 
belief. [They  therefore  made  excuse  for  themselves  by  saying, 
This  world  of  iniquity  and  unbelief  is  subject  to  Satan.  The 
truth  of  God  cannot  be  taken  in  by  men  because  he  uses  his  un- 
clean spirits  to  prevent  it.  Therefore  show  now  at  once  the  re- 
demption thou  art  destined  to  bring.  But  Christ  replied:  The 
term  of  Satan's  power  has  indeed  been  reached,  but  other  terrible 
things  are  approaching.  It  was  for  the  sake  of  leading  sinners 
to  turn  to  the  truth  from  their  evil  ways  that  I  was  delivered  up 
to  death,  so  that  they  might  become  heirs  of  the  spiritual  glory 
imperishably  laid  up  in  heaven  for  the  righteous.']  You,  there- 
fore, must  become  heralds  to  all  the  world  of  this  message  of  sal- 
vation. Faith  and  baptism  will  bring  rescue.  Disbelief  will 
result  in  perdition.  And  as  a  proof  of  your  authority  these 
wonders  shall  accompany  your  preaching.  Wherever  believers 
appeal  to  my  name  the  devils  shall  be  exorcised,  there  will  be 
speaking  in  tongues  unheard  until  now,  serpents  ivill  be  handled 
without  harm,  poison  shall  be  swallowed  with  impunity,  the 
sick  shall  be  healed  by  laying  on  of  hands. 

Vers.  19,  20.  So  when  Jesus  had  given  this  commission 
and  authority  to  the  Apostles,  he  was  received  up  into  heaven 
and  sat  down  on  the  throne  at  God's  right  hand.  And  his 
Apostles  went  forth  everywhere  with  their  message,  which  the 
Lord  confirmed  by  the  signs,  which  followed  as  he  had  promised. 
Amen. 


234  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY 


EPILOGUE.    !6t9-20 

All  who  have  had  experience  with  the  adaptation  of  literary  material, 
even  if  the  original  composition  be  one's  own,  know  the  difficulty  of 
subsequent  alteration  without  leaving  evidence  of  abridgment  by  some 
remaining  reference  to  excised  material,  of  addition  by  lack  of  corre- 
spondence with  context,  or  in  general  by  evidence  of  changed  point  of 
view.  Among  textual  critics  this  law  of  literary  structure  leads  to  the 
observed  principle  that  glosses  and  textual  corruptions  tend  to  accumu- 
lation. One  corruption  entails  another  till  a  growing  mass  has  heaped 
itself  around  one  early  misreading.  The  causes  being  identical  we  need 
not  wonder  at  the  same  phenomenon's  appearing  also  on  the  larger 
scale  of  editorial  adaptation.  From  allusions  to  events  later  to  transpire, 
such  as  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit, !  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  to  the 
Gentiles, 2  the  "testimony"  of  its  heralds  "before  governors  and  kings,"3 
the  martyrdom  of  James  and  John,4  and  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem, s 
it  is  certain  that  our  evangelist  presupposed  for  his  readers  some  means 
of  knowing  the  tradition  which  made  connection  between  themselves 
and  the  events  which  guaranteed  their  faith  and  practice.  It  is  sup- 
posable  that  for  this  indispensable  link  the  original  evangelist  relied 
merely  upon  oral  tradition,  or  that  he  expected  his  readers  to  be  ac- 
quainted with  some  other  work  which  supplemented  his  own  in  this 
direction;  but  the  comparatively  late  date  which  even  tradition  assigns 
to  the  origin  of  the  Petro-Markan  work  (after  65  a.d.)  makes  depend- 
ence on  mere  oral  tradition  an  improbable  reliance  for  a  writer  in  Rome, 
and  the  demonstrable  dependence  of  even  "the  former  treatise"  of 
Luke  on  our  Mark  makes  it  certain  that  the  canonical  book  of  Acts 
was  not  yet  in  existence.  Our  choice  is  thus  limited  to  two  alternatives. 
Either  the  original  Roman  evangelist  himself  continued  his  work  down 
to  the  coming  of  the  gospel  to  Rome,  after  the  manner  of  our  third  evan- 
gelist; or  else  some  narrative  corresponding  to  the  more  radical  of  the 
two  main  sources  employed  in  Acts,  perhaps  represented  in  degenerate 
form  in  the  later  "Acts,"  "Predications,"  and  "Peregrinations"  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  was  already  current.  We  have  found  no  other  means 
of  explaining  how  a  Gospel  could  become  current  which  embodied  no 
more  of  the  most  vital  element  of  "the  gospel,"  viz,  the  resurrection 
story,  than  was  the  case  with  our  Mark  on  the  most  favorable  supposi- 
tion. 

We  do  not  need  to  decide  definitely  between  the  two  alternatives; 
but  we  may  be  guided  in  our  thought  by  the  actual  experience  of  the 
Syrian  Church.  This  Church  owes  the  preservation  of  what  it  still 
designates  "the  separate  Gospels"  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John 
to  the  forcible  suppression  by  Rabbula,  bishop  of  Edessa  (f435  a.d.),  of 
the  combined  Gospel  or  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  which  had  completely 
superseded  them.  Second  treatises  may  well  have  had  a  similar  fate. 
Our  Acts  would  be  a.  result  of  the  combining  process  without  the 
later  restoration.  Of  "separate"  Acts  there  remain  to  us  mere  de- 
generate fragments.  The  primitive  Mark,  too,  had  once  a  "second 
treatise."  But  this,  whether  our  evangelist's  own,  or  a  preexisting 
one,  was  superseded,  through  qualities  of  superior  comprehensiveness, 
literary  finish,  or  doctrinal  acceptability,  by  some  later  composition,  per- 
haps our  own  Lukan  Acts.     Its  companion  "former  treatise,"  after  the 

U:8.  s  13: 10;  14:9.  »  13:  9.  *  10:  39.  *  11: 14. 


THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION  235 

manner  of  writings  dealing  with  so  sacred  subjects,  meanwhile  main- 
tained its  hold  in  popular  use.  But  readers  of  this  would  soon  feel  the 
need  of  at  least  some  brief  synopsis  of  the  resurrection  story  to  complete 
it.  Our  analysis  of  the  Gospel  tends  to  show  that  such  a  supplement 
was  indeed  attached  after  15:  39,  reporting  the  manifestation  in  Galilee 
to  "  his  disciples  and  Peter";  doubtless  in  substance  what  now  appears 
in  Mt.  28:  16-20,  though  perhaps  with  features  similar  to  Jn.  21:  1-19; 
Lk.  5:  4-9  and  the  fragment  at  the  end  of  Ev.  Petri. 

This  supplementation,  however,  was  by  no  means  the  only  change. 
The  whole  narrative  was  revised  and  recast.  Features  were  added  from 
Q  material,  especially  such  as  favored  radically  Pauline  views  against 
Jewish  and  Jewish-Christian  conceptions.  In  particular  a  narrative 
which  detached  the  first  resurrection  message  from  the  person  of  Peter, 
and  connected  it  with  the  holy  sepulcher  in  Jerusalem,  was  interjected  in 
15:  40 — 16:  8.  The  experience  of  Peter  thus  lost  its  originally  funda- 
mental importance,  and  degenerated  to  an  incident  of  secondary  rank. 
The  more  concrete  and  materialistic  traditions  dealing  with  the  body, 
and  how  the  tomb  had  been  found  empty,  were  much  more  accept- 
able in  the  post-Pauline  period. 

Matthew's  Gospel  shows  the  process  at  this  stage.  Only  it  could  not 
stop  here.  The  limits  of  "gospel"  were  now  fixed  through  the  usurpa- 
tion by  independent  narratives  of  the  field  of  apostolic  activity.  But 
the  battle,  once  begun  between  the  "holy  sepulcher"  version  of  the 
resurrection  story  and  the  Galilean-Petrine,  could  only  be  settled  by 
mutual  accommodation,  in  which  the  terms  would  surely  tend  in  favor 
of  the  more  concrete.  Whether  the  lost  manifestation  "to  the  dis- 
ciples and  Peter"  was  unacceptable  by  reason  of  too  much  or  too  little 
consideration  for  the  Rock-foundation1  and  chief  under-Shepherd2 
of  the  Church ;  or  by  reason  of  the  manif est  senselessness  of  a  return  to 
Galilee  so  apparent  to  Luke,  the  latter  part  of  it  was  cancelled,  leaving 
only  15: 40—16: 8.  Thereafter,  ca.  140  a.d.,  new  endings  of  more 
general  or  more  comprehensive  character  were  supplied. 

That  ending  which  is  almost  invariably  placed  first  in  manuscripts 
where  both  are  attached  will  be  found  among  the  variant  readings 
under  the  text  of  16:9. 

iMt.  16:17.  aJn.  21:15-19. 


236 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY         16:9-13 


9  TIVTOW  when  he  was  risen  early  on  the 

L  JLl     first  day  of  the  week,  he  appeared 

first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  from  whom 

10  he  had  cast  out  seven  Mevils.  She  went 
and  told  them  that  had  been  with  him,  as 

11  they  mourned  and  wept.  And  they,  when 
they  heard  that  he  was  alive,  and  had  been 
seen  of  her,  disbelieved. 

12  And  after  these  things  he  was  manifested 
in  another  form  unto  two  of  them,  as  they 
walked,   on  their  way  into  the   country. 

13  And  they  went  away  and  told  it  unto  the 
rest:  neither  believed  they  them. 

1  The  two  oldest  Greek  manuscripts,  and  some  other  au- 
thorities, omit  from  ver.  9  to  the  end.  Some  other  authori- 
ties have  the  following  ending  to  the  Gospel:  And  they  briefly 
reported  all  things  commanded  them  to  Peter  and  his  company. 
And  after  these  things  Jesus  himself  appeared  to  them,  and  from 
the  east  even  to  the  west  sent  forth  by  them  the  holy  and  incor- 
ruptible proclamation  of  eternal  salvation. 

2  Gr.  demons. 


(Jn.  20:  11-18; 
cf.   Lk.  24:  10, 
11) 


(Lk.  24:  13-35) 


Shorter  Ending.  The  essential  element  of  a  link  assuring  the  reader 
that  the  Gospel  which  has  come  to  him  is  that  authorized  by  the  risen 
Lord  is  here  attached,  together  with  the  briefest  possible  statement  of 
the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  of  ver.  7.  This  ending  is  substantially- 
identical  in  purport  with  Mt.  28:  16-20,  except  that  it  avoids  the  Gal- 
ilean localization  and  connected  difficulties.  Its  rhetorical  language 
shows  its  comparatively  late  origin,  though  in  this  respect  it  has  little 
advantage  over  its  longer  rival.  In  respect  to  agreement  with  the  work 
it  aims  to  supplement,  it  is  less  successful  than  Mt.  28:  16-20,  which,  in- 
stead of  flatly  contradicting  16:  8,  introduces  a  second  appearance  to 
the  women  (Mt.  28: 9,  10),  counteracting  their  fear  and  setting  the  mes- 
sage once  more  on  its  interrupted  way. 

Vers.  9-20.  The  Epilogue.  The  chief  difference  of  the  so-called 
"longer"  ending  is  its  attempt  to  harmonize.  The  appearances  in 
Galilee  are  indeed  ignored  as  before,  but  the  author  is  acquainted  with 
Luke,  and  perhaps  with  John,  though  the  form  of  reference  in  ver.  9 
and  the  absence  of  any  to  the  other  manifestations  of  Jn.  20,  make  it 
possible  that  he  knew  only  the  tradition  developed  in  Jn.  20:  11-18, 
which  was  also  known  to  Celsus  (ca.  170  a.d.),  though  this  opponent  of 
Christianity  shows  no  other  acquaintance  with  John.  The  tradition  is 
a  version  of  Mt.  28:  9,  10.  One  can  hardly  infer  with  certainty  from  the 
form  of  the  Apostolic  Commission  in  vers.  15,  16  that  the  author  knew 
Mt.  28:  18-20.  An  acquaintance  with  the  widely-known  Gospel  of 
Matthew  would  indeed  be  probable  a  priori,  but  the  writer  scarcely 
considers  any  authority  but  Luke,  and  the  Commission  is  expressed  in 
the  most  general  terms. 

Vers.  12,  13.  The  only  motive  for  introducing  the  Emmaus  incident 
(Lk.  24:  13-35)  is  to  show  how  far  from  credulity  was  the  attitude  of 
the  disciples.  This  motive  is  carried  to  the  point  of  a  flat  contradiction 
of  Lk.  24:  34  in  ver.  13,  though  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  con- 
tradiction was  already  present  in  Luke's  own  narrative  (with  Lk.  24:  34 
cf.  ver.  41). 


16:14-18        THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRECTION 


237 


14  And  afterward  he  was  manifested  unto 
the  eleven  themselves  as  they  sat  at  meat; 
and  he  upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief 
and  hardness  of  heart,  because  they  be- 
lieved not  them  which  had  seen  him  after 

15  he  was  risen.1  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 

16  gospel  to  the  whole  creation.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but 
he  that  disbelieveth  shall  be  condemned. 

17  And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  be- 
lieve: in  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  Mevils; 
they  shall  speak  with  3[new]  tongues;  they 

18  shall  take  up  serpents,  and  if  they  drink 
any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  in  no  wise  hurt 
them;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick, 
and  they  shall  recover. 

1  Var.  add:  And  they  excused  themselves,  saying.  This  age  of 
lawlessness  and  unbelief  is  under  the  dominion  of  Satan,  who  by 
means  of  the  unclean  spirits  prevents  the  truth  (and)  power  of  God 
from  being  apprehended.  On  this  account  reveal  thy  righteousness 
even  now.  And  Christ  replied  to  them,  The  limit  of  years  of 
Satan's  power  is  fulfilled,  but  other  terrible  things  are  at  hand;  and 
on  behalf  of  sinners  I  was  delivered  up  unto  death  in  order  that 
they  might  return  unto  the  truth  and  sin  no  more;  that  they  might 
inherit  the  spiritual  and  incorruptible  glory  which  is  in  heaven. 

2  Gr.  demons.  3  Var.  omit  new. 


(Lk.  24:  36-49) 


Mt.  28:  19 
Jn.  20:  21-23 


Vers.  14-18.  An  element  of  Acts  1:  1-11  not  apparent  in  the  usual 
form  of  the  text  appeared  as  part  of  this  longer  ending  after  ver.  14,  in 
mss.  known  to  Jerome,  and  has  very  recently  come  to  light  in  manu- 
scripts discovered  in  Egypt.  There  is  clearly  a  gap  in  the  usual  form 
at  this  point;  for  how  can  Jesus  proceed  without  a  break  to  commission 
as  his  heralds  those  whose  "unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart"  is  as  yet 
uncorrected?     The  gap  is  filled  in  the  new  mss.  as  above  (see  var.). 

Jerome  quotes  no  further  than  the  words  "even  now,"  but  his  ms. 
authority  may  well  have  been  as  ours.  At  all  events,  something  is  re- 
quired for  the  transition  from  ver.  14  to  15,  and  the  new  material  sup- 
plies in  substance  what  we  should  expect;  though  its  style  ("return 
unto  the  truth  and  sin  no  more,"  "spiritual  and  incorruptible  glory") 
is  of  a  second  or  third  century  type.  The  vital  point  of  the  new  ele- 
ment is  the  grounding  of  the  missionary  enterprise  upon  the  time  con- 
sideration. As  soon  as  the  disciples'  unbelief  is  overcome  they  leap  to 
the  inference  that  God's  "righteousness  is  now  to  be  revealed,  his  salva- 
tion is  near  to  come";  cf.  Is.  51:  5,  6,  8.  The  reply  is,  The  dominion  of 
Satan  is  indeed  broken,  but  the  kingdom  is  not  yet.  There  is  an  inter- 
vening duty.  "Sinners"  (one  is  tempted  to  think  that  in  the  funda- 
mental record  this  word,  like  the  word  "righteousness,"  was  used  in  the 
Hebraic  sense  of  14:  41;  Gal.  2:  15)  must  receive  the  message  of  salva- 
tion through  the  cross.  Therefore  the  command,  "Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,"  etc.,  and  the  promise  of  accompanying  "signs."  The  same 
conception  underlies  Acts  1:  6-8,  though  more  obscurely.  We  should 
think  the  whole  abstract  a  mere  recapitulation  of  the  story  of  Acts  with 


238  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  GOSPEL  STORY      16: 1%  20 


19  So  then  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  he  had 
spoken  unto  them,  was  received  up  into 
heaven,  and  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of 

20  God.  And  they  went  forth,  and  preached 
everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them, 
and  confirming  the  word  by  the  signs  that 
followed.    Amen.] 


(Ac  1:  6-11) 


its  similar  Apostolic  Commission,  Ascension,  Gift  of  Tongues,  Signs  and 
Wonders — specifically  the  Pauline,  Acts  16:  16-18;  28:  3-6,  8 — were 
it  not  for  the  inclusion  of  a  tradition1  regarding  Judas  Barsabas  unknown 
to  Acts.  As  it  is,  the  praragraph  is  a  mere  abstract,  a  substitute,  not 
the  story  itself.  And  it  suggests  in  some  respects  acquaintance  with 
the  sources  of  Acts,  particularly  the  Diary,  rather  than  with  Acts  itself. 
The  possibility  at  least  is  open  that  our  two  rival  appendices  are  attempts 
to  adapt  the  mutilated  Mark  for  circulation  alongside  of  other  gospels. 
In  the  case  of  the  shorter  ending  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  the  model, 
with  possible  knowledge  of  the  ending  implied  in  14:  28;  16:  7  as  the 
ultimate  basis.  In  the  case  of  the  longer,  the  work  of  Luke  was  the 
model,  though  with  some  touches  of  extraneous  matter.  In  this  case 
there  is  considerable  reason  to  postulate  as  ultimate  basis  the  original 
ending  of  the  Gospel,  which  connected  the  story  with  the  apostolic  rela- 
tions of  the  Church  in  Rome. 

The  conjecture  of  an  Armenian  scribe,  inserted  as  a  scholion  in  a  Ms. 
of  989  a.d.,  attributing  the  "longer  ending"  to  "The  Elder  Ariston" 
is  of  no  value.  It  seems  to  rest  on  the  (supposed)  statement  of  the 
Armenian  historian  Moses  of  Chorene  (ca.  450  a.d.)  that  Ariston  was 
the  "secretary"  of  Mark  of  Jerusalem.  But  the  "Mark"  here  in- 
tended is  the  bishop  Marcus  of  Jerusalem  of  135  a.d.,  and  the  "Ariston" 
is  a  (heathen?)  writer  of  Pella.  Moses  does  not  even  mean  that  he 
was  secretary  of  Marcus  the  bishop,  but  of  the  Armenian  king,  whose 
obsequies  he  described.  The  error  of  the  Armenian  scribe  is  partly  due 
to  the  spelling  "Ariston"  for  "Aristion"  in  the  passage  of  the  Armenian 
Eusebius  which  mentions  an  "Elder"  of  this  name  along  with  "the 
Elder  John."  The  alleged  coincidence  of  a  gloss  in  an  Oxford  ms.  of 
Rufinus  connecting  the  poison  story  with  the  name  "Aristion"  has  no 
foundation,  as  the  discoverer  of  the  supposed  evidence  now  admits. 


1  Papias,  fragt.  V,  ed.  Lightfoot-Harmer.  The  daughters  of  Philip  related 
"that  Barsabas  who  is  also  called  Justus,  being  put  to  the  ordeal  by  the  unbelievers, 
drank  the  poison  of  a  viper  in  the  name  of  Christ  and  was  kept  from  all  harm." 


THE  END 


BS2585.B128 

The  beginnings  of  Gospel  story  : 

Nlllllll Nil llilfi°l09iCal  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00029  9273 


DATE  DUE 

^t0tm»»*<>^*Mmm 

p 

GAYLORD  #3523PI        Printed  in  USA 


